From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.comp-aided
Subject: Re: Time for some changes (was: computers in research)
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:11:32 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <6fljqyg@lynx.unm.edu> john@aquarius.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
>
>  ... physics of his problem deleted ...
>
>     ...        The day is here when you have to be truly interdisciplinary
>and you have to have a pretty darn good grasp of physics, mathematics,
>and computer science, all at a fairly sophisticated level.  However, you
>may not have as much depth in any of these fields as a true specialist
>in them would.  Even in your main field, you probably will have less depth 
>in some of the traditional aspects of it than someone who sits in splendid
>isolation working on traditional problems. 

I agree with the first comment, but not with the latter.  If you are really 
going to work on the physics, you do have to have the depth in your main 
area of research.  You also need the other skills, and what is hard is to 
keep up on state-of-the-art code design while also developing new insights 
into the physics issues and getting your program optimized for 3 different 
platforms (RISC, Cray, CM-2).  And having enough time to look at tools 
like PVM so you can run massively parallel code on sets of RISC stations. 
After all, I publish in Phys. Rev. so I have to know and incorporate all 
the current literature on the subject like anyone else. 

>                                       The universities are astoundingly
>slow to appreciate this sea change that is happening however.  The 
>curriculum is still based on teaching 19th century ways to solve 19th
>century problems, while precious time is wasted that could be used to
>educate students on how to solve 21st century problems using 21st
>century technology.  At best we teach mostly very early 20th century
>material with perhaps a smattering of 1940's or 1950's material (QED for
>example).  The same is true of most of the  graduate program,
>comps usually test you on about the same body of knowledge that our
>grandfathers had to know, ignoring the tremendous changes that have occured.

Again, the problem is that some employers like the fact that physicists 
all share a certain common base of knowledge from Newton and Maxwell to 
Einstein and Dirac.  This is an old complaint about comps.  I think the 
FSU solution, where you have a written comp on "history" followed in the 
next year by an oral comp on your proposed work and the background in 
the field of same, is an interesting attack on the inclusion of current 
research results in the graduate exams.  But the sea change is happening. 
A lot of computer work has been incorporated into our math-methods course 
at the exepense of stuff not used much today except to solve Jackson problems, 
and one faculty member even used computers in grad E+M. 

As always, one has to hash out the curricular changes since something 
has to go for everything that is added.  Students can always take the 
extra classes to learn outside their area, that is what I did, but most 
have limited time (or inclination) to do so.  Fighting over the curriculum 
is not new; one might want to change the first year course, but the great 
unwashed masses in there are mostly majors from other fields and you have 
to keep their departments happy too.  Getting them on your side may be 
the first step -- know your enemies and your allies. 

>It is a terrible waste and it is the one major indictement I would make
>against the generation of the 60's.  There is a conformist attitude in
>that generation that is somewhat appalling, a product I think largely of
>the fact that the universities are populated mostly by people of such
>homogeneous backgrounds.  There is very little new blood or diversity in
>the scientific disciplines in the universities, and I think this is probably
>why we have seen so little progress in updating our teaching.    ...      

Maybe.  Some of the leaders (Redish at Maryland comes to mind) are from 
the trailing edge of that group.  Lets face it, many of them did not and 
do not use computers.  They are going to retire soon; some already are 
leaving.  The problem will work its way out. 

>Well, obviously this is a hobby horse.  You wanted to spark some discussion
>in this newsgroup, maybe this will do it :-) .
>
>John 
>
>-- 
>John K. Prentice                      | "We must make good the demands of
>Department of Physics And Astronomy   | reason and create a life worthy of
>University of New Mexico              | ourselves and of the goals we only
>john@aquarius.unm.edu                 | dimly perceive."  - Andrei Sakharov

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)