[AkThhhpppt]

What about biological production of plastics?

Or bioinfomatics or computational biology, where they're understanding current biology, not engineering new stuff?

You've discarded all of fundamental science, in favour of teaching your kids programming. Programming's important, but a physics degree _definitely_ teaches programming along with _how the universe works_. And stats. Lots and lots of stats. ",)

I'm just saying; you come across as a little short sighted, here.

[genwin]

It's certainly possible that biotech can be employed for the greater good. But I'm confident there will be a ton of competition for that relative sliver of jobs. I know several people with physics degrees. None of them do physics for a living. None could find a decent job doing it. Whereas programming is a very safe bet over the next 20 years, and is better taught by Python courses than physics.

I'd like schools to favor programming over physics and chemistry, but not ignore physics and chemistry altogether.

[AkThhhpppt]

So you think schools should teach programming over fundamental science? As a very learned person said, "[physics] runs the shit that runs the shit that runs the shit that runs your shit!"

If you don't know physics, you don't know why there are fundamental limits to Moore's Law that we are rapidly approaching, for an example.

[genwin]

I took two years of physics classes. Virtually none of it applied to life. For example what good did it do me to calculate the trajectory of a projectile (multiple times, for homework, pop quiz, test, semi-final, and final)? We could've spent a fraction of the time on the concept and then been shown the equation for possible future reference, never to actually do a calculation. It would've served me much better to spend most of that time learning programming. I could've grasped fundamental limits to Moore's Law without ever doing a calculation of a projectile.

Nowadays physics is a hobby of mine, having entertainment value only. I can fully appreciate that "[physics] runs the shit..." but that doesn't pay the bills or get me to retirement.

[AkThhhpppt]

Ballistics is occasionally interestingly counterintuitive, but perhaps that was overkill.

Bully for you. But it's the idea of prioritizing what is essentially a technician's job (yes, we call ourselves engineers; in reality, most of us are craftsmen) over knowing how the world works, and having some of the mental tools to figure stuff out that's confusing me.

Also, physics really rubbed in abstraction as a concept: "here's the atom, it's a black box, but externally scientists at this point in history could tell this about it. Then this discovery was made. Here's the nucleus, it's a black box, but externally scientists at this point in history could tell this about it..."

[genwin]

I do want schools to teach physics at a high level. As long as they'll get bogged down in minutia (as was my experience, and from what I've seen it's still the case) I'd rather they teach programming. Better they do Python functions than ballistics calculations. It's highly likely my kids will exit high school without having heard about relativity or quantum mechanics, except from me or info elsewhere.

[AkThhhpppt]

Well in that case, you've got big issues with the science curriculum, and that might be a better place to start...