The Dilemma of the Introductory Astronomy Laboratory

Were we meeting a century ago to discuss the state of astronomy education, we might have noted that remarkable changes were taking place in our field. The discipline, then regarded as a branch of geometry or mechanics, concerned itself primarily with the determination of positions in the heavens and the mapping of places on the earth. But with the advent of spectroscopy and the construction of large telescopes, astronomy was beginning to probe the how and the why of the heavens as well as the where and when. It was, in short, transforming itself into astrophysics, the study of the physical nature of the universe.

A century ago, we would have called for a change in the things we teach; and in fact there was such a change. When we look at the astronomy of the succeeding century, the material we now offer to introductory astronomy students at most universities and colleges, we see only a vestige of the earlier preoccupation with place and time. Judging by most textbooks, and by the course syllabi I have seen, most of us devote only a small fraction of our courses to astronomical coordinate systems, timekeeping, geodesy, and celestial mechanics. When we teach the solar system, we teach comparative planetology. When we teach the stars, we teach about main sequence and giant branch, about hydrostatic equilibrium and neutron degeneracy, about pulsars and supernovae. When we discuss the universe at large, we teach about the physics of the early universe, the dynamics of galaxies, and the fundamentals of general relativistic cosmology.