I read in utter fascination of this opinion piece by Micheal McCracken. As you read this, pay attention not only to the fact that there appears to be a difference between how he perceived physics is taught at the undergraduate level, but also how the differences between the pedagogy of physics and chemistry/biology translates itself into how science is perceived by the public.
Abstract: During recent collaboration with colleagues to revise our institution's
general-education curriculum, I encountered many perceptions of what we mean by
the Natural Sciences. I was surprised to find that perceptions of scientific
pedagogy varied significantly among the scientific disciplines, especially
concerning issues of philosophy of science and epistemology, manifested in the
approaches to teaching theoretical concepts and their development. These
realizations suggest that Physics occupies a singular role in college
curricula, introducing students, even at the introductory level, to the
acquisition of knowledge by theoretical means and the assessment of theory
based on experimental evidence.
His idea that fulfilling a student's requirement on learning Natural Science without taking physics and either chemistry or biology will be a serious deprivation on how science is done.
I tend to agree.