In the past, I used to have given up of having some say in the undergraduate physics curriculum. Being the only theorist then, I do have some idea what should a major (pure) physics graduate be knowledgeable about. Often these ideas are met with questions who is going to teach the so-called theoretical courses. Now, while this is a practical question to consider, I thought this question had it the wrong way round. We should focus on preparing students for some reasonable period in the future, rather than be concerning about ourselves. The one thing I can't challenge or compete is the idea that the department may want to have some special unique interest, which is mainly in materials sciences and in engineering-like physics. Being alone, I told myself that I should not interfere with curriculum matters at that period and focus my efforts in building up a theory group at research level.
Things have changed now, we have two more theorists in the department and the mentality that one theorist is enough, probably has died down. Note, somebody mentioned that for a significant research group, there should be at least three members. With me leaving the university soon, there is a need for another theorist to join. Otherwise, it may revert to the situation that I was in, years ago. Again, the department may need to think what should be the future of the theory group. Make it as a significant group in the department or not. With simply three, the theory group may have difficulty to survive in the face of competing interests. I recall a remark made by the director of ITMA at some point, research papers are getting more difficult to publish without considering solid theoretical background particularly in quantum physics. Thus, I find it strange if there is no effort in securing a proper theory group. When I was in ITMA years ago, Kwek and I have wrote a popular article in ITMA bulletin that with current interest in nanoscience and nanotechnology, it is only natural to include quantum ideas very soon as the length scale is already close to atomic scale.
Our physics curriculum undergoes a revision every five years. I do consider that it is necessary that whatever curriculum is adopted, it should be stable enough to last for at least ten years for particular character or traits to emerge and persist from the curriculum. Otherwise it will be too volatile. This also means that one should do some crystal ball forecasting what will be and remains important in the next ten years. Sincerely I felt that it is best for the younger generation to decide what will be the (future) direction of the subjects taught at the department. I would give my views, however, if I was asked. Thus, yesterday I was invited to the curriculum meeting. Initially, I intend to be quiet in the meeting, but then members began asking my views on the courses reviewed and the new courses. I do think that some courses that were drafted in the early days of UPM should be relooked and modernized. I even suggested this to my favourite course of quantum mechanics since wave mechanics is now part of Modern Physics. Our theory group did suggest Quantum Information & Technology as a new course but now with the view that it is a recommended course for pure physics major. Nevertheless, with all these suggestions, it is subject to the majority decision of the department.
Today, being at the Faculty, did my part in editing the synopsis and course outline of some of the theoretical courses. I hope it is acceptable to my colleagues. As I have said earlier, it is really up to the younger colleagues to see these courses implemented successfully.
It seems like it is going to rain soon. Can't wait to get home. Here are the cats waiting for us to get home.
PS: Reached home quite early - there seems to be no traffic jam today.
No comments:
Post a Comment