Physics in 9th?

[stephanie]

Is there any reason to not do physics as a freshman as opposed to Biology?

[regentrude]

The only reason to start with biology is that the student may not have the math prepration for physics- other than that, there is none. It makes a lot more sense to start with physics, as this is the most basic of sciences, the basis of chemistry, and all biological systems are governed by the laws of physics as well. From a systematic point of view, physics should be first.

Both my kids are taking algebra/trig based physics as their first high school science in 9th grade. This, however, is only possible because they have completed algebra before 9th.

For a student who did not study algebra before 9th grade, conceptual physics is still a way to do physics first.

[Grantmom]

Our local PS has a special STEM track and the kids do Physics in 9th. I think before they have always done it in 12th. Would it be harder to do the AP Physics exam and the SAT Subject Test though, at the end of 9th? I thought those were supposedly really challenging.

[Jen in NY]

From what I have heard, the new AP Physics Exams (2015) will not require calc. For now (2014), AP Physics B requires no calculus, but does require trig ....AP Physics C does require Calc. I think for most kids, the plan would be a high school level algebra based physics for 9th, and an AP Class later on.

[stephinsocal]

You might take a look at Udacity's Intro to Physics. It requires understanding of algebra, and teaches all the trig that's necessary for the concepts presented. My science-y 8th grader did it in a semester and loved it.

[Sunshine State Sue]

Ds took physics in 9th grade with Derek Owens.  You may read my review here.  He completed Algebra 1 in 8th grade.

 

From the FAQ at his site:

Isn't Physics usually taken by high school seniors?

Some schools put physics at the end of the science curriculum. That is, the students take Biology, then Chemistry, then Physics. More recently, however, many schools have been reversing the order and teaching Physics, then Chemistry, and then Biology. The reason for this is that logically and chronologically, Physics does in fact come first. The theories of Physics were developed first, historically. From an understanding of certain physical concepts, such as subatomic particles and the forces acting on them, the study of chemistry arises. From an understanding of chemical processes, such as those that take place in a cell, the study of biology arises. There is a good logical argument, therefore, for putting Physics first, followed by Chemistry and Biology. In practice, it has been seen to work well both ways.

 

Is it better to take Physics as your first science course or your last?

It can work well either way. Whether the course is a good course or not will depend primarily on other factors, such as the quality of the instruction and the motivation of the student. Putting Physics first or last in the science curriculum is not a "make it or break it" issue. Mr. Owens has taught Physics and Honors Physics as students' first high school science course, and AP Physics as students' last high school science course.

 

 

 

[jhschool]

Our local PS has a special STEM track and the kids do Physics in 9th. I think before they have always done it in 12th. Would it be harder to do the AP Physics exam and the SAT Subject Test though, at the end of 9th? I thought those were supposedly really challenging.

You can successfully do the SAT Subject Test just fine after 1 year of Algebra-based Physics as

a 9th grader.

 

I will tell you the answer for the AP Physics after I get the scores back.

[snowbeltmom]

You can successfully do the SAT Subject Test just fine after 1 year of Algebra-based Physics as a 9th grader.

 

 

:iagree:

 

As long as a student has a strong algebra background, taking both the AP Physics B exam and the Physics SAT II as a 9th grader is very doable.

[snowbeltmom]

Is there any reason to not do physics as a freshman as opposed to Biology?

I decided to have my rising 9th grader study biology next year rather than physics despite the fact that my son has the required math background to successfully complete an AP Physics B course.

 

My reasoning is that my son has absolutely no interest in biology at all and most likely will not be required to study biology in college.  If he had his way, he would never study biology at all. 

 

My son, most likely, will be required to study physics and chemistry in college.  I am having him study these subjects after biology so the concepts will be more fresh in his mind when he enters college and will need that background information.  My guess is that any subject that he studies in 9th grade will be mostly forgotten 4 years later. 

[HSDCY]

I believe in the physics, chemistry, biology sequence for science. However, ds who finished algebra 2 before the end of 8th grade couldn't grasp the concept of the mechanics. I tried Hewitt's Conceptual Physics (it was an epic failure), and then Giancoli's textbook (a much better textbook for a math inclined student) with no luck. 

 

I am glad I took the last couple of months of his 8th grade year to try out physics before we settle for it for 9th grade. Needless to say we are doing biology for 9th grade.

 

So I guess math is not the only reason. In our case, the ability to grasp concept in physics is the deterring factor.

[regentrude]

However, ds who finished algebra 2 before the end of 8th grade couldn't grasp the concept of the mechanics. .. In our case, the ability to grasp concept in physics is the deterring factor.

I have a question about this. I find that my physics students do much better with mechanics than with other areas of physics, because the mechanics they can SEE and correlate to their everyday experiences (things falling, balls being thrown, stuff sliding on ramps), whereas electricity and magnetism are not as readily observable, and most students are lacking a first hand personal experience on which they have built an intution.

My question would be: if a student has difficulties grasping *mechanics* concepts (for which he should have an intuition from daily observation), will he really have an easier time grasping the much more abstract issues involved in biology, such as proton pumps and cellular respiration? With modern biology containing so much biochemistry, would this really be easier for a student than studying the behavior of objects he can acually observe?

I do not mean to be snarky at all; I am honestly curious why one would expect biology to be simpler - it is a lot more complex and abstract than introductory physics, because we can not easily observe processes at a cellular level.

[HSDCY]

I have a question about this. I find that my physics students do much better with mechanics than with other areas of physics, because the mechanics they can SEE and correlate to their everyday experiences (things falling, balls being thrown, stuff sliding on ramps), whereas electricity and magnetism are not as readily observable, and most students are lacking a first hand personal experience on which they have built an intution.

My question would be: if a student has difficulties grasping *mechanics* concepts (for which he should have an intuition from daily observation), will he really have an easier time grasping the much more abstract issues involved in biology, such as proton pumps and cellular respiration? With modern biology containing so much biochemistry, would this really be easier for a student than studying the behavior of objects he can acually observe?

 

Maybe we are strange people  :laugh:, but both dh and I feel the mechanics is the hardest part in high school physics. Even though the mechanics part is easier to relate to in life, it can still be very abstract. For example, we can't see all forces at work. All we "see" is the effect of the net force. And so it could be pretty abstract when it comes to drawing and noting all the forces in a system. If one has a hard time doing that, then he can forget about solving any physics problem that requires it.

 

As for biology, I think it is still a knowledge based science at least in high school level. Classification, evolution, ecology, human systems are all pretty concrete stuff. The only part that's more abstract and hard to "see" is the stuff happening at the cellular level. Even with topic like cellular  respiration, you can know the "what" without knowing the "how". But one can't get away with that in physics. 

 

 

[TravelingChris]

For my dd, she did physics first.  SHe had life science in middle school and didn't want to do Biology right away.  She loves physics and yes, she thought mechanics was very easy and can't understand why people don't get it.  But she is my last kid and very different from the others.  None of them did Biology first because I really think Chemistry should come before Biology.  But the other two did Physics last.  Neither one of those two found physics to be as fun as my youngest. The physics actually helped her get meaning from doing the math.

[jhschool]

Our local PS has a special STEM track and the kids do Physics in 9th. I think before they have always done it in 12th. Would it be harder to do the AP Physics exam and the SAT Subject Test though, at the end of 9th? I thought those were supposedly really challenging.

 

It is fine to do AP Physics B successfully at the end of 9th grade!!!

 

:)

 

(We got the scores today!)

[jhschool]

I have a question about this. I find that my physics students do much better with mechanics than with other areas of physics, because the mechanics they can SEE and correlate to their everyday experiences (things falling, balls being thrown, stuff sliding on ramps), whereas electricity and magnetism are not as readily observable, and most students are lacking a first hand personal experience on which they have built an intution.

My question would be: if a student has difficulties grasping *mechanics* concepts (for which he should have an intuition from daily observation), will he really have an easier time grasping the much more abstract issues involved in biology, such as proton pumps and cellular respiration? With modern biology containing so much biochemistry, would this really be easier for a student than studying the behavior of objects he can acually observe?

I do not mean to be snarky at all; I am honestly curious why one would expect biology to be simpler - it is a lot more complex and abstract than introductory physics, because we can not easily observe processes at a cellular level.

I think it's because you can do very well in a Biology class if you just memorize everything.

Memorization is key even if you don't understand anything.  It is an easy A.

But in Physics you need to know how to do the problems, which goes beyond memorization.

You have to think harder and figure things out in order to get an A.

 

Not meaning to offend any biologists--this is my understanding of it (at least, this is how

I got all my As in high school biology--I memorized everything; in my Physics classes I felt

like I had to understand concepts--still got As but wasn't always confident going into exams).