There is a fairly well organized group of physicists in the states that is promoting computational methods as an integral part of a physics undergraduate curriculum. There will be a working session at the Winter AAPT meeting in Chicago next February. Also take a look at the special issue "Computation in Physics Courses" of Computing in Science and Engineering (Sept/Oct 2006) to see what some other programs are doing (disclaimer: I wrote one of the articles). Also, the American Journal of Physics recently (April/May 2008) released a double issue in "Computation and Computer Based Instruction" with lots of information in it (especially the resource letter by Landau). As it happens, Landau, Jan Tobochnik (editor of AJP), and Norm Chonacky (editor of CiSE) are all part of the AAPT working group.
Some of these are really good suggestions (though I'm not sure some of the stuff in "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is age appropriate for 5th/6th graders (isn't that the one with the bit about the topless bar in Brazil?).
However, I don't see any female scientists on this list - be sure to get Marie Curie (obviously) and Rosalind Franklin (helped discover DNA, but got shafted in the credits). If you want something really odd, Hedy Lamarr was an electrical engineer who invented a guidance system for torpedos (though, again I'm not sure her early acting career is age appropriate - nudity was a big deal in the '30s). Or for more traditional scientists there is Maria Goeppert Mayer (described nuclear structure) and Emily Noether (a mathematician who's theorem is a fundamental underpinning of theoretical physics).
Unfortunately, there are few really famous female scientists, so they may be difficult to find info on.
You've got some good answers and some stupid ones, but I haven't seen this one: Computational Science. You'll be suprised how much "pure math" gets applied to physical problems - that on top of your computer skills makes you an excellent candidate. Second, go to graduate school - it's free! In the sciences admission to graduate school generally includes a tuition waiver and a teaching/research stipend of some sort. Getting a Masters degree will make a huge difference in your lifetime earning potential (doctorate, not so much - it's something you have to really want to do). There are several "computational" programs around the country now - U Tenn Chattenooga and U Miss. spring to mind, but there are others.
As someone who has used these things from the other side (yes, I teach at a university, physics and astronomy actually), I think they are a symptom of a larger problem.
Universities today (especially state ones) are increasingly pressuring professors to do more with less. Funding is being cut across the board, with the burdon being shifted to students to a larger and larger degree in tuition and fees, but this generally does not make up for the budget shortfall. Larger class sizes are a direct consequence of this. Most professors who actually care about the quality of their teaching are being forced into this situation even at schools where "small class size" is a selling point - many are looking for a magic bullet that will make them feel like they are doing as good a job with their large class as they were with the smaller ones.
IMHO, it can't be done. Smaller classes and personal interaction are the only things that significantly improve students' performance, mostly because they are willing to work harder. Certainly, access to the professor is a big part of it, but I think that there is also a fear of letting down a professor that they see as a friend or role model. This certainly has been my experience.
FWIW, I have stopped using the clickers, even in my large astronomy classes. Assuring the students that "Being wrong with conviction is better than being right on accident" seems to help somewhat with the old show of hands method.:)
Slashdot Mirror
There is a fairly well organized group of physicists in the states that is promoting computational methods as an integral part of a physics undergraduate curriculum. There will be a working session at the Winter AAPT meeting in Chicago next February. Also take a look at the special issue "Computation in Physics Courses" of Computing in Science and Engineering (Sept/Oct 2006) to see what some other programs are doing (disclaimer: I wrote one of the articles). Also, the American Journal of Physics recently (April/May 2008) released a double issue in "Computation and Computer Based Instruction" with lots of information in it (especially the resource letter by Landau). As it happens, Landau, Jan Tobochnik (editor of AJP), and Norm Chonacky (editor of CiSE) are all part of the AAPT working group.
Some of these are really good suggestions (though I'm not sure some of the stuff in "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is age appropriate for 5th/6th graders (isn't that the one with the bit about the topless bar in Brazil?). However, I don't see any female scientists on this list - be sure to get Marie Curie (obviously) and Rosalind Franklin (helped discover DNA, but got shafted in the credits). If you want something really odd, Hedy Lamarr was an electrical engineer who invented a guidance system for torpedos (though, again I'm not sure her early acting career is age appropriate - nudity was a big deal in the '30s). Or for more traditional scientists there is Maria Goeppert Mayer (described nuclear structure) and Emily Noether (a mathematician who's theorem is a fundamental underpinning of theoretical physics). Unfortunately, there are few really famous female scientists, so they may be difficult to find info on.
You've got some good answers and some stupid ones, but I haven't seen this one: Computational Science. You'll be suprised how much "pure math" gets applied to physical problems - that on top of your computer skills makes you an excellent candidate. Second, go to graduate school - it's free! In the sciences admission to graduate school generally includes a tuition waiver and a teaching/research stipend of some sort. Getting a Masters degree will make a huge difference in your lifetime earning potential (doctorate, not so much - it's something you have to really want to do). There are several "computational" programs around the country now - U Tenn Chattenooga and U Miss. spring to mind, but there are others.
As someone who has used these things from the other side (yes, I teach at a university, physics and astronomy actually), I think they are a symptom of a larger problem. Universities today (especially state ones) are increasingly pressuring professors to do more with less. Funding is being cut across the board, with the burdon being shifted to students to a larger and larger degree in tuition and fees, but this generally does not make up for the budget shortfall. Larger class sizes are a direct consequence of this. Most professors who actually care about the quality of their teaching are being forced into this situation even at schools where "small class size" is a selling point - many are looking for a magic bullet that will make them feel like they are doing as good a job with their large class as they were with the smaller ones. IMHO, it can't be done. Smaller classes and personal interaction are the only things that significantly improve students' performance, mostly because they are willing to work harder. Certainly, access to the professor is a big part of it, but I think that there is also a fear of letting down a professor that they see as a friend or role model. This certainly has been my experience. FWIW, I have stopped using the clickers, even in my large astronomy classes. Assuring the students that "Being wrong with conviction is better than being right on accident" seems to help somewhat with the old show of hands method. :)