The following concerns a question in a physics degree exam at the University of Copenhagen: “Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer.”
One student replied: “You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building.”
This highly original answer so incensed the examiner that the student was failed immediately. He appealed on the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct, and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case. The arbiter judged that the answer was indeed correct, but did not display any noticeable knowledge of physics.
To resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer which showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics.
For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn’t make up his mind which to use.
On being advised to hurry up the student replied as follows: “Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper,
drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula H =0.5g x t squared. But bad luck on the barometer.
“Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper’s shadow, and thereafter it is a simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper.
“But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the difference in the gravitational restoring force T = 2 pi sq root (l / g).
“Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up.
“If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into feet to give the height of the building.
“But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor’s door and say to him ‘If you would like a nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you tell me the height of this skyscraper’.”
The student was Niels Bohr, the only Dane to win the Nobel Prize for Physics. (Source: http://www.mentors.ca/bohr.html)
As leaders, managers, teachers, and even parents, are we open minded enough to accept that others think, solve problems, and even see the world differently than we do? Do we encourage, reward, and reap the benefits of diverse viewpoints and independent thought in others? Most of us find it easy to accept this idea on an intellectual level. On an emotional level, when we see people we care about proceeding down paths that we would never ourselves take, reaching conclusions that are very different form ours, it is a little more difficult. Often it requires that we step back and exercise faith.
As a teacher and parent, I have to constantly remind myself that my purpose is not to turn out clones of myself, but to help create situations in which my students and my children can be more fully, effectively, and productively themselves.
Tags: diversity, independent thought, leadership, Organizational Communication, parenting
June 24, 2009 at 9:18 pm |
Well executed, Niels Bohr was one of the most talented physicists of his time, and though this is a fairly famous story, your telling of it was compelling.
It is a message that too many beaurocrats miss, one that goes over the head of most teachers, and one from which every parent would benefit.
Your site has been bookmarked.
June 25, 2009 at 2:26 am |
One of the challenges facing teachers when they take a more open-minded approach is to separate silliness from real smarts. Niels obviously knew what he was talking about, but many just memorize answers from wikipedia or lookup their answers on google and take whatever’s in the first 2-3 hits.
While teachers should embrace smart, open-minded students, they should also challenge them and push them so that they can excel and continue their lifelong learning.
June 25, 2009 at 7:41 am |
What a great story! I love opening my mind to a better way of doing things. I hope that educators will make the effort to open the doors to open learning and improve and change tests so that it encourages “real” thinking instead of spitting out memorized chunks of data that haven’t been fully digested. Keep this great stuff coming!
June 26, 2009 at 2:14 am |
Bro Embree, this is fantastic. I’m enjoying your [web]log!