Merits of Advanced Placement Reexamined

The article “Advanced Physics in the High Schools,” although it raises some interesting truths, has also created apparent paradoxes. Those of us who have taught both of the Advanced Placement Physics courses in high school can testify that the AP Physics B course is the more difficult of the two to teach. Here we arrive at the first paradox. The AP Physics C course covers only two of the five big areas of introductory physics—mechanics and electromagnetism. The B course also includes thermodynamics and fluids, waves and optics, and modern physics. A score of 5 on the B exam is much more praiseworthy than a 5 on the C exam. Yet the broader, more comprehensive exam gets less respect from universities and colleges.

The National Research Council implies that the AP Physics B course is too broad to be stimulating. However, many AP physics teachers have observed that the B course produces more physics majors than the narrower C course. Many of my former students who went on to declare physics as a major said that physics offered more variety than other sciences. The NRC says that “stimulating interest . . should be a key goal,” yet it wishes to abolish the course that has motivated more potential physics majors than any other high-school course I offer.

The second paradox concerns the time spent on topics. If done correctly, both AP physics courses should be second-year courses for all but the top 5% of high-school students. For most of my students, getting a 5 on either exam was a result of 360 classroom hours. According to the NRC, teachers do not have enough time to completely develop conceptual understanding, inquiry-based learning, and problem-solving skills for the material on the AP Physics B exam. Colleges and universities across the nation, however, have a similar curriculum, use the same books, yet claim to be able to accomplish these learning objectives in 90 hours over two semesters. Why does the NRC question the group that spends 180 or 360 classroom hours on the material instead of the group that spends only 90 contact hours?

The third paradox has to do with a statement from the article. On the one hand, the authors say that, as teachers, they “have found that students at all levels like intellectual challenges that are within their reach.” And on the other hand, the NRC wants to disband both AP physics courses in favor of one course focused around “a single version of Newtonian mechanics.” How can the more limited course challenge a diverse group of high-school students “at all levels”?

A small amount of the article addresses the only real problem with the AP Physics C course: waiting on the students to get to integral calculus. At that point, the AP Physics C course becomes an asset. Instead of mathematics being used to understand physics, the reverse usually occurs. As the science teacher in a team, I can show how summations lead to integrals without losing continuity in either AP course, Physics C, or Calculus. The NRC acknowledges that problem solving is important and emphasizes collaborative learning. Yet it recommends isolating physics from the rest of the non-science high-school curriculum. In my opinion, this last is the saddest contradiction of all.