THE PROBLEM OF TEACHING PHYSICS IN LATIN AMERICA

by Richard P. Feynman

"The Problem of Teaching Physics in Latin
America" is a transcript of the keynote speech given by Richard Feynman at
the First Inter‑American Conference on Physics Education in Rio de
Janeiro in June 1963.Dr. Feynman
is Richard Chace Tolman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech.

The problem of teaching physics
in Latin America is only part of the wider problem of teaching physics
anywhere.In fact, it is part of
the problem of teaching anything anywhere Ð a problem for which there is no
known satisfactory solution.

There are many new plans in many
countries for trying to teach physics, which shows that nobody is satisfied
with any method.It is likely that
many of the new plans look good, for nobody has tried them long enough to find
out what is the matter with them; whereas all the old methods have been with us
long enough to show their faults clearly.

The fact is that nobody knows
very well how to tell anybody else how to teach.So when we try to figure out how to teach physics we must he
somewhat modest, because nobody really knows how.It is at the same time a serious problem and an opportunity
for new discoveries.

The problem of teaching physics
in Latin America can also be generalized in another way, to remind us of the
problem of doing anything in Latin America.We must get at least partly involved in the special social,
political, and economic problems that exist here.

All the problems come into
sharper focus if there is before us a clear picture of the reasons for teaching
physics in the first place.So I
will try to give some reasons why I believe we should teach physics.We can then ask whether any particular
educational plan is in fact satisfying any of the reasons.

The first reason is, of course,
that physics is a basic science, and as such is used in engineering, chemistry,
and biology, and has all kinds of applications in technology.Physics is the science, or knowledge of
nature, that tells us how things work.In particular, I am stressing here how devices of various kinds Ð
invented by men in present and forthcoming technology Ð work.Therefore, those who know physics will
be much more useful in coping with the technical problems arising in local
industry.

It might be argued, and in
practice it is argued, that in the earlier stages of industrial development
that we have in Latin America, such talent is completely superfluous because it
is so easy to import good technically‑trained personnel from more advanced
countries outside.Therefore, is
it really necessary to develop highly‑technically‑trained people
locally?

I probably do not know enough
economics to answer correctly, but I will try to give an opinion anyway.I think it is vitally important to improve
the technical ability of the peoples of Latin America.By education, the man with higher
technical ability is able to produce more, and I believe that in the
improvement of the technical ability, and thus the productivity, of the people
of Latin America lies the source of real economic advancement.

It is not economically sound to
continuously import technically‑skilled people.If Latin American people were educated technically they
would find positions in the developing industries here; it would soon be
realized by the people who now import such workers that there is a supply of
really able men in this country, and that this local supply has many
advantages.The local people would
not demand such high wages, would know the customs and ways of the country, and
would be glad to take more permanent positions.

It is true that Latin Americans
with the same degrees in science or engineering as their foreign counterparts
seem to be very much less able.This (as I shall explain) is because they have not really been taught
any science.This experience has
probably conditioned industrialists to pay very little attention to the local
universities and scientists.If they
were wise the industrialists would see the problem quite the other way around
and would be the first to clamor for a meeting of the kind we are having today,
to find out what is the matter with the local product and how to teach physics
in a really satisfactory manner in their countries.Yet none of them are here.

A secondary reason for teaching
physics, or any experimental science, is that it incidentally teaches how to do
things with your hands.It teaches
many techniques for manipulating things Ð as well as techniques of measurement
and calculation, for example Ð which have very much wider applications than the
particular field of study.

Another major reason for teaching
physics is for the science itself.Science is an activity of men; to many men it is a great pleasure and it
should not be denied to the people of a large part of the world simply because
of a fault or lack in the educational system.In other words, one of the reasons for teaching science is
to make scientists who will not just contribute to the development of industry
but also contribute to the development of knowledge, joining others in this
great adventure of our times, and, of course, obtaining enormous pleasure in
doing so.

Thirdly, there is good reason to
study nature to appreciate its wonder and its beauty, even though one may not
become an actively‑working professional scientist.This knowledge of nature also gives a
feeling of stability and reality about the world and drives out many fears and
superstitions.

A fourth value in teaching
science is to teach how things are found out.The value of questioning, the value of free ideas Ð not only
for the development of science, but the value of free ideas in every field Ð
becomes apparent.Science is a way
to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent
things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and
uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that
judgments can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show.These are certainly important secondary
yields of teaching science, and physics in particular.

Finally, in learning science you
learn to handle trial and error, to develop a spirit of invention and of free
inquiry which is of tremendous value far beyond science.One learns to ask oneself: "Is
there a better way to do it?"(And the answer to this is not the
conditioned reflex: "Let's see how they do it in the United States,"
because there must certainly be a better way than that!)We must try to think of some new
gimmick or idea, to find some improvement in the technique.This question is the source of a great
deal of free independent thought, of invention, and of human progress of all
kinds.

This ends my list of reasons for
the teaching of physics as a science.Let me turn now to a description of some of the major characteristics of
science education in Latin America which appear to me to be of special concern
for us.

First, and most serious, I
believe, is the almost exclusive teaching and learning by means of pure abject
memory.This in no way teaches
physics as a science.Nothing is
understood; it is only remembered.This in no way satisfies the reasons I outlined for teaching science.Memorization of laws does not permit
one to make applications of these laws to new situations; it does not permit
one the pleasure of ultimately making scientific contributions; it cannot teach
any techniques with the hands.From memorizing, knowledge is not understood, and the beauty of nature
is not appreciated.It does not
tell how things were found out, or reveal the value of an inventive free mind.

For example, the telescope is an
interesting device to make, understand, look through, and play with.It turned men's ideas and minds in new
directions.It gave a great
impetus to the modern revolution of thought.For a long while it was the sole revealer of the vastness of
the heavens and man's modest place in it.But, in Latin America one learns that there are four kinds of
telescopes: the Newtonian, the Cassigranian, etc., etc.In the first, the image is virtual and
inverted, etc. (I put in all this "etc." because I really don't know
how many kinds of telescopes there are, or what their names are, or which way
the image is in each kind.But
don't underestimate me; I know a very great deal about telescopes Ð how they
work, how to make and use one, their powers and limitations, etc.)The result is that the telescope is
lost.There is no more telescope,
no lenses, no stars, no eyes, no light Ð just words memorized without requiring
understanding.The examination is
passed, for the question was "What are the four types of telescopes?"

I must say immediately that I am
not against memorizing.Some
things, even many (though nothing special) may be learned by heart; for
example, it is good, but not essential, to know by heart 7 x 8 = 56.What I oppose in any teaching
philosophy is that the philosophy is used exclu­sively; but in this case it
is especially serious because so little is left of the subject.

It was incomprehensible to the
people of my country when I reported how material is memorized in Latin America
completely without understanding.Lectures are dictated so slowly that students can copy them word for
word into their notebooks Ð and sentences are even repeated so they can check
them back.

When asked what Brewster's Law
is, advanced students answer in a flash: "Light impinging on a material of
index n is 100 percent polarized with the electric field perpendicular to the
plane of incidence if the tangent of the angle of incidence equals the index of
refraction."

To these same students I then
say, "Look out at the bay from which the sunlight is being reflected.If I look at that reflection through
this piece of polaroid and turn it, what will happen?"All I receive are blank stares.No one knows.But I get cries of surprise and delight when they try it and
see the reflections getting brighter and dimmer.

This shows something is
completely wrong.There is no
knowledge whatsoever of nature.With the wrong entrance clue the memorization is useless.These students are like books, no
more.I can look in the index of a
book under "Brewster's Law" and find a reference equivalent to the
students' reply.But in the index
I cannot find "sun reflecting on bay."

What do the students know that is
not easily and directly available in a book?The things that can be looked up in a book are only a part
of knowledge.Who wants such a
student to work in a plant when a book requiring no food or maintenance stands
day after day always ready to give just as adequate answers?Who wants to be such a student, to have
worked so hard, to have missed so much of interest and pleasure, and to be
outdone by an inanimate printed list of "laws"?

What experience I have makes me
think that this is one of the main failures in the education of students in
Latin America.

A second problem in Latin America
is that the students are all alone.They cannot converse with other students; they cannot see how stupid
some fellow students are.This is
mainly for some psychological reason.They do not wish to be found unsure, for they will be ridiculed.They cannot ask questions in class
because the others later say, "Why do you waste the time of all of
us?Everyone knows
that."So, to save face, they
all put on a show of knowledge, thereby frustrating free discussion and the
exchange of ideas Ð one of the pleasantest and easiest ways of learning
things.There is too much show,
and too much formality in the classroom for any exercise of free thought and
discussion.

A third problem is the lack of
freedom in the university structure.You cannot move around from one subject to another or from one lab to
another.Those who go abroad to
learn find it difficult to communicate their new knowledge easily and directly
to the university students when they return Ð for they cannot find a place in,
and are not welcomed into, the university structure.For some reason or other, it becomes necessary for such
people to create new and separate research institutes.The spirit of excitement in these
institutions as their research progresses is not found in the universities, and
this is quite unfortunate.

Another problem in Latin America
is that there is very little outlet for the students who do not want to become
complete scientists.It is not
easy for them to obtain jobs in the developing industries here.Perhaps if these students were really
adequately trained, the companies would gradually realize their value and this
problem would disappear.But some
of the enthusiastic students are not geniuses, and there must be some place for
them to go Ð even though they are not going to make any scientific
contribution, or become second Einsteins.

When I began studying at MIT I
started in mathematics, and probably I thought I would be a mathematician.Then I discovered that the only use of
higher mathematics is to teach more higher mathematics and I turned to
something more practical Ð electrical engineering.Finally I realized I had gone too far in the other direction
and chose something in between Ð physics.

This was all very easy because,
for such closely related subjects, the courses taken by students in each
discipline were almost exactly the same and were taught by the same
professors.The engineers studied
physics taught by the physicists, for instance, and the physicists learned some
of their electricity in a course taught by the professors of electrical
engineering.It is easy for
students to move back and forth among related disciplines.If physics is too difficult for them,
or mathematics too abstract, they can turn to engineering and can later expect
to find a position somewhere.Such
changes are much more difficult in Latin American universities.

Another characteristic of the
situation in Latin America is the small number of people involved: the result
is a rapid fluctuation and irregularity in the character of organizations and
institutions.How something goes
depends very much on particular individuals.

Finally, we must mention the
problem of the best students leaving to go to other countries.This is because of the lack of
opportunities in Latin America, the climate of rigidity that exists in the
universities, and the vagaries of fortune of the research institutions as their
budgets find uneven support from year to year, from the government and private
sources of funds.

I should now like to give some of
the questions for which I think we must seek answers here.

First, how can we free the lower
levels of secondary education from the drudge memorization that exists at the
present time?It is well known
that you can get children quite interested in science in a true, live, and
active way while they are young.It is sometimes said you cannot get them interested by the time they are
in the university, but this is not true Ð provided they have not been destroyed
as thinking humans at the earlier levels.

Gibbon said: "The power of
instruction is of little efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it
is nearly superfluous."This
is not really true.It is true of
good instruction, but bad instruction can be very efficacious indeed in
impressing on one how impossibly dull some subject is.It is possible to destroy the
excitement and interest that students may have gained by discovering a small
book in the library, by buying a toy, a chemistry set, or a little electric
motor Ð by playing around.In
fact, one of the most important sources of motivation of interest in science is
in a toy, or in a special book, and from those few teachers who are free enough
from the bonds of an educational system to be able to keep children excited and
inspired by supplying them with suggestions, demonstrations, and games.

It is a well known experience in
education that, in spite of all plans and programs, ultimately almost everything
depends on teachers Ð on individual teachers.You can have poor teachers and, no matter what you try to do
with them, the students learn very little.Or you can have good teachers and it doesn't make much
difference what you do, provided you
leave the teacher free.So I think
we must find how to free those few teachers who can be inspiring to
children.It is important that
those inspiring teachers work along with children, suggesting experiments and
trying them freely.

The second question we shall have
to try to answer is how to bring engineers and other applied scientists closer
to their real world of application.It is not enough for them to remember exactly how to use the formula,
providing that the situation is exactly the same as the situation was in the
engineering school when the professor dictated the lecture.We must do something to make the
applied engineer more flexible, so that he is effective in a wide range of
applications.

One way may be to have true
scientists Ð and especially active research experimental physicists Ð teaching
physics to some engineering students.Experimental physics generates technical problems.To succeed, you have to work with your
hands; you have to meet reality; pure memory won't do.So, people who are good at experimental
physics know what engineering problems are.

The development of industrial
technology is in a great measure simply the wider application of techniques
which in most cases were developed by scientists trying to do experiments.This is because, in trying to do some
experiment in science, you have to push some technique to the extreme.In doing so, you learn how things can
be done.Experimental physicists
first pursued the problems of how to make a higher vacuum or a lower
temperature than ever before, and now high vacuum and low temperatures are
tools of industrial technology.

Therefore, experimental science
is a source of engineering and experimental science should be taught to
engineers in school to keep them aware of the wide range of techniques
available and the open possibilities of the future.Perhaps, then, after we have created enough real engineers
with real value to industry in Latin America, industry will see that there is
no advantage to hiring engineers from overseas and will want more of the
locally-trained men and will support the schools with methods of teaching which
produce such engineers.Then we
will have the ball rolling.

I understand that the number of
engineering schools in Latin America is growing rapidly.For example, in Brazil there are twice
as many engineering schools as there were ten years ago.If this is the case, then maybe the
problem can solve itself.If these
schools are not all organized under the same system, if there is a variety in
the schools, then one or another school may develop a way to produce excellent
students Ð if the secondary school preparation has not first ruined them.Then this school will acquire a
reputation, children will try to go there, other schools will try to compete
and copy the better methods‑and so on until the problem solves itself.

The third problem that we have
here is how to encourage the true research workers and keep them from leaving
home permanently.We have to
supply them with books, with experimental equipment, with money for visits
abroad, and with a coterie of active interested students.No, excuse me Ð the coterie will form
automatically if the researcher is good and can get to students in any way at
all.

It is imperative to encourage the
true research worker who is making contributions to science to make his home
base in his own country.This
should not be hard because there are strong feelings of patriotism in these
men; they know they have a great deal to give their country and want to give
it.The difficulty is the terrible
problems they have at home.For
example, the physics research center in Rio, which is one of the leading ones
in Latin America, has become isolated from the rest of the world because of a
very simple thing: Nobody wants to pay for the Physical Review or Nuovo Cimento. Nobody wants to pay for the journals that can keep
people informed of what happens somewhere else.

This, along with the fact that salaries are absurdly low,
shows a lack of interest by the Brazilian government, people, and industry, in
the development of science in this country.It is an attitude that does not respect or understand the
value of these men.These creating
scientists should have a dignity and a power to control their own destiny, and
that of science and of science education in their countries.It will be in safe, loving hands.

It is from the fountain of
research workers who understand what science is really about that the true
spirit of inquiry rains onto their students, and their students' students, and
ultimately, if things are organized right, permeates the entire educational
system and speeds the technical development of the country.

The fourth problem, then, is how
to get these research workers back into the universities where they
belong.Then the "rain"
will have a far easier and direct passage to the students, the new scientists
of the country.

I should like to emphasize, by
addressing my fifth and final question to the problem, the importance of doing
any of these things in a steady,
consistent, continuous, and modest way.It should not be done with a big show, the big money, with much
advertising, unsupported in the future by any effective maintenance.Maintenance is lacking in many of these
projects, for these things have happened before.Pulses of energy have been liberated, forward steps have
been taken, only to slip back for lack of continued support.It is necessary to keep up anything
that works out.It is necessary to
provide a continuous, consistent, perpetual support and to make things more
modest so that continuity of support can be maintained.A research group becomes world famous
only after years of fruitful research.One year of no support and people drift away and there is nothing left.

I appreciate that this is a
problem of great difficulty and seriousness because it involves so closely all
of the social and economic circumstances in the country, and the difficulties
are often (but not always) merely the reflection of the vastly more serious problems
of the varying fortune of the country as a whole.Yet we ought to discuss it further here.We might try to see if there are ways
to work out a scheme so that the educational system, or at least such critical
parts of it as research scientists or especially good teachers, is partially
independent of the variations in success of the government.

Perhaps it should not be
completely supported by government.Perhaps greater efforts to obtain private funds might work.Possibly more reliance on, and contact
with, more permanent institutions like religious schools might sustain the
continuity of these efforts.

I have discussed the problems as directly. and frankly as
possible, as I see them.I don't
mean to make any criticism, except in the same spirit as any discussion we
shall have later will represent a criticism.For surely we shall not all find everything well with the
present situation in physics education in Latin America.If so, we would not have had such a
meeting.I have tried to avoid
making too many specific active suggestions on how to proceed, because this is
our job for the rest of this meeting.