Why do physics-oriented quantum curricula struggle more than traditional computer science education with cross-disciplinary learning?

Your question asks about pedagogy and curriculum design — which is fascinating — but the provided preprints actually *address* why this gap exists rather than explaining why physics-oriented programs struggle *more* at cross-disciplinary learning.

Here's what the archive does tell us:

The core problem is structural: most quantum computing courses are taught by physicists using physics frameworks, creating a mismatch with computer science students' prior knowledge and career goals [AG-2024.03-1371]. When quantum is presented as "applied quantum mechanics" rather than as a computational paradigm, non-physicists face a steep on-ramp before they can connect it to anything in their own training [AG-2024.03-2151].

Successful cross-disciplinary programs flip this: they start with computing concepts and *build toward* quantum, rather than assuming physics fluency [AG-2024.03-2151]. They also use concrete, interactive tools—circuit simulators, MOOCs with branching learning paths, hands-on hardware—that let students from diverse backgrounds engage without prerequisites in abstract mathematics [AG-2024.04-1892], [AG-2024.04-1704]. And critically, they attend to *context*: students at community colleges, undergraduates, and industry workers have different goals and prior knowledge, so one-size-fits-all physics curricula naturally fail them [AG-2024.07-2227].

The deeper insight is that quantum *informatics*—framed as computer science with quantum tools—is a different intellectual project than quantum *physics* taught to future physicists [AG-2024.07-2107]. Physics curricula struggle at cross-disciplinary work partly because they're optimized for the wrong audience.

The provided preprints don't directly compare physics-oriented vs. traditional CS education retention or learning outcomes, so I can't answer the comparative question you asked.