How difficult is physics?

Perusing my electronic media today, I was amused by the contradictory messages that surfaced. On his blog, The Dayside, Charles Day wrote:

If a school’s catalog of courses were a music store, physics would be the modern jazz section, where you’d find the likes of Eric Dolphy’s 1964 album Out To Lunch!…[J]ust as modern jazz is enjoyed by a small band of enthusiasts, physics will likely remain a minority interest. Physics is too esoteric and difficult to become as popular as country and western music.

I read the Dayside just after reading Richard Hake’s message to the Physlrnr list-serve (also posted to the AERA-L listserve), “Is physics difficult?” In that message, Hake quotes a 1989 article by Ken Ford:

Physics is difficult in the same way that all serious intellectual effort is difficult. Solid understanding of English literature, or economics, or history, or music, or biology – or physics – does not come without hard work. But we typically act on the assumption (and argue to our principals and deans) that ours is a discipline that only a few are capable of comprehending. The priesthood syndrome that flows from this assumption is, regrettably, seductive . . . If physics is not more difficult than other disciplines, why does everyone think that it is? To answer indirectly, let me turn again to English. Six-year-olds write English and (to pick a skilled physicist writer) Jeremy Bernstein writes English. What separates them? A long, gradual incline of increased ability, understanding, and practice. Some few people, illiterates, do not start up the hill. Most people climb some distance. A few climb as far as Bernstein. FOR PHYSICS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE FASHIONED A CLIFF. THERE IS NO GRADUAL RAMP, ONLY A NEAR-VERTICAL ASCENT TO ITS HIGH PLATEAU. . . . . When the cliff is encountered for the first time by. . . (14- or) . . . 16- or 17-year olds, it is small wonder that only a few have courage (and the skill) to climb it. There is no good reason for this difference of intellectual topography.

This message brought to mind a radio interview with UC Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller that I heard this week. Listen to the first five minutes of the interview (the first five minutes are definitely worth your time), and you will hear Muller echo the concern that physics only seems difficult and esoteric because of the way it is taught. Muller emphasizes that physics is highly relevant for topics ranging from global warming to national security, but the organizational structure of introductory physics and the “fog of math” are often used as a cloak, obscuring conceptual ideas that are relevant, engaging, and accessible.

We don’t do physics any justice by highlighting how esoteric and difficult it is, and we actually risk the future health of the field. Can physics research be esoteric? Certainly, but even esoteric topics can become mainstream. One need only consider the trajectory of the laser. Is physics difficult? Yes, but not more difficult than other serious academic pursuits. Perhaps the real difficulty is rethinking how we can teach physics to make it accessible and engaging, particularly for those who do not plan to be physicists.

Careerwise website and resilience training

About a week ago, the NSF Update Daily Digest Bulletin that arrived in my inbox announced “Online Resource Offers Resilience Training for Women in Science.” The announcement rubbed me the wrong way, but I decided to hold my opinion until I could actually access the Careerwise website, which was launched this past Thursday. Now, having poked around the website a bit, I’m still not enthusiastic. The homepage announces, “Are you a woman in science or engineering? You know about problem-solving in technical areas. Now learn how to take on interpersonal and personal issues too.” The website’s purpose is to help women learn problem solving strategies for dealing with graduate school challenges. Rather than trying to change the climate for women, this project tries to improve persistence by teaching women to be more resilient. I find myself bothered by the subtext of this project, namely that women, unlike men, don’t persist in STEM fields because they lack the interpersonal skills and know-how to face difficulties that arise.

I’m uncomfortable with the way in which the website simplifies the messiness of career management. Clicking around Careerwise, I was annoyed by the learning objectives printed at the top of each section and by subsections that included trite titles such as “What is stress?” or “What is optimism?”. The site touts the many video clips of women scientists, but the few I listened to were uninspiring. For example, there is an interview with Dr. Marcia Levitus of Arizona State University with the heading, “Reminder that it is not necessary to feel comfortable socially to do good science.”  While it’s true that one can do good science without feeling comfortable socially, I don’t think one should have to settle for social discomfort in order to maintain a science career.

In an ABC News article, Jennifer Glass, a PhD student who used the website as it was being developed, said, “The Web is taking over the way we communicate, so I don’t think it’s far-fetched at all to have virtual role models. We need mentors and networks, and that’s what this Web site is providing.” As someone who has struggled (and often not succeeded) in finding mentors to help me address career challenges, I am keenly aware of the importance of mentors and networking. However, precisely because I have been without a mentor, I can attest that no amount of information or virtual advice will ever replace a real live human being who knows you and your situation, who can listen critically and work with you to help you address difficult situations.

Have you visited the Careerwise website? If so, what were your impressions? In grad school, would you have benefited from resilience training like that provided by this website?