Slashdot Mirror
New UK Initiative - Make Science Easier
An anonymous reader writes "Examiners in the UK have been told to make science 'easier'. From next year 70% of the paper must consist of 'low demand' questions in the form of multiple choice or similar answers. Currently this type of question makes up some 55% of the test. When the recent A level results were announced, with even more students in the UK getting A grades than ever before, educators were congratulating themselves on improved teaching. 'Jim Sinclair, the Joint Council for Qualifications director, emphatically denied that the changes would lead to a rise in the number achieving grade C - the top grade in the foundation tier. Future results would depend on how the marks were allocated. Dr Sinclair added that the changes would help to stop children being turned off by science.' Even still, it's hard to see the benefit from future science students passing by guessing."
Congratulating themselves for better teachings, that's bull, every year people get straight grades and you just get all the adults shouting that students are actually really stupid now and that the tests are just getting easier, trust me, at no point do they entertain the idea of the students being better taught.
I can't believe he would possibly think this would attract people to science! I very nearly didn't do Physics at A-Level because GCSE science was too easy. They watered down stuff so much that you couldn't possibly reason with it. You could only solve a limited range of problems with the mathematics available and none of them were remotely interesting.
I was sad to see the same was true in A-Level Chemistry. A-Level Chemistry isn't really science, it's more like religion. You learn an enormous table of facts with some spirtual-esc "electron cloud" explanation for it. There's no way to work through it from first principles - there is no understanding and a vague promise it would come some day.
I am convinced that the way to get people in to science is to get down to brass-tax much earlier on; get down to the real physics of what's going on. In my opinion, there is no reason that the bright kids could not be walked through a solution to the Schrodinger Equation's solution for the Hydrogen atom energy levels at sixteen. There is no reason you can't teach them basic calculus either. There's no reason why you can't walk them through how to derive the equations for circular motion.
You see, it's not the details of the mathematics really matters at this early stage but an appreciation how the solution is arrived at. It's seeing that we take a fundamental postulate, which they would establish by experiment in class, and run with it and here's the physics that we come up with. In short, it's showing them that with rigorous application of the scientific method and a few years of training on the mathematics, that all of this interesting stuff can be arrived at with nothing more than a pencil and paper.
That, my friends, is how you really inspire! You do not inspire anybody by making a intellectual Mount Everest in to a word-search.
Simon
.. what W will be doing when he leaves office - moving to England to be closer to his buddy Tony, and being the figurehead for this effort.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Whilst the examiners in question may be living and working in the UK, there is no such thing as a "UK" exam: Scotland has a completely different examination system, run by a different exam board. Admittedly, the Times article just talks about GCSEs (exam standard in England and Wales at age 16) and never makes any comparison to the Scottish equivalent (fair and balanced reporting? the Times? Tories don't care about Scotland!)
Most people in England seem to wonder why so many Scots want independence.... but don't know the difference between UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland), Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), and England (a catch all, that normally means whatever combination of the above countries happens to be convienient at the time).
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
The only politically correct way to improve science teaching.
...
Don't forget, if students fail, it's the school's fault
/.ers could guide me to some good resources for homeschooling.
I have an 11 year old sister who recently shocked me by being unable to divide by 12 (to convert inches to feet). She could perform the math operation trivially when she was 8 or 9. If anything, she's backsliding in regular school. With exams like this, I fear for her performance. Earlier today my mom and I had a bitter fight over whether we should just homeschool her until the XIth grade when hopefully she can take the IB.
Any thoughts? Feedback? Resources?
shooting is not too good for my enemies
You're a credit to your education. Learn to spell.
The UK is turning into an ignorant third world country and it's wishy-washy liberal attitudes like yours which exacerbate the situation.
Or perhaps you genuinely believe that math should be about what numbers 'feel' like?
capcha: urchin
Science positions in the UK are particularly poorly paid. If the country needed more scientists, surely the high wages would indicate the problem.
Deleted
"There is no royal road to geometry." (Or science.)
Dumb science down, and you get dumb scientists. What we need is a way to make it more interesting -- and show students how, for example, conducting an experiment or programming a simulation on a computer can be fun. Once they're interested -- and the mathematics involved have a clear purpose rather than being just rote memorization of arcane formulae -- Science suddenly becomes something they *want* to do.
There may be no "royal road" to science -- but there's nothing saying that we can't make the trip more enjoyable, and encourage more travelers at the same time.
As a side benefit, science is a great way to teach critical thinking (which IMHO is the whole point of education).
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
.... lol ....
I haven't laughed so hard all morning....
The hardest science classes I took at a university, zoology, were all multiple choice tests, and they were wicked hard. Remember that a multiple choice test can be constructed in such a way to make sure you really understand the material. It just requires a professor who is knowledgeable and has a bit of a sadistic streak in him/her.
Thank you Professor Dietz, wherever you are.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
> Even still, it's hard to see the benefit from future science students passing by guessing.
It's called a hypothesis!
Question 1) Schroedinger was famous for his:
a. Hat?
b. Cat?
c. Kat?
see the physics GCSE paper here: http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/exampaper.pdf
several comments (and food for thought):
1. multiple choice questions are proving popular for one reasons only - they can be marked by computer and are quicker and cheaper to process because of this.
2. unless you think that people are getting a lot more intelligent in a couple of generations then you must assume that either (a) the exams are easier or (b) that students are being thought only how to pass exams (this is the view held by several teacher friends of mine)
3. my first university course (which was a 3 year course in the late 80s) is now a 4 year course - this additional year is used as a remedial course to get students back up to the level they used to be at. universities certainly do not believe that more students are doing much better then they ever have previously.
4. schools are busy reducing the number of students doing maths (and further maths), chemistry and physics as much as possible as in general students get lower grades - in turn this lowers the performance of the school as a whole in the league tables. in other words it is hard to get people to do their jobs properly when their wages rely on them doing it badly.
5. employers have also been lamenting the quality of school leavers in many subjects - maths, spelling, english.
its a pretty dismal state of affairs in the UK, and it seems to be repeating itself in the EU and in the colonies.
i think much of the blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the government who seem to delight in meddling in the schools at every opportunity. with the international baccalaureates being introduced soon who knows what will happen next?
A nation of spineless cowards, pant-shitters, CCTV worshippers and now ignorants. I shit on them.
Deleted
I predict that these band-aid solutions to try and motivate students will backfire when (and if) they continue their education. I remember when I was back in school and the prospect of taking AP courses was supposed to be the pinnacle in difficulty - that they were almost equivalent to the types of courses you would find in first-year university. When I got through them, I was expecting that university would be a simple continuation of that, perhaps somewhat alleviated by the fact that I had learned more than is normally required at that level.
I'll never forget the day when I sat in one of my fist physics classes at university. The professor calmly remarked that 40% was the passing grade. Having done quite well even through the AP programme, I looked at one of my friends with disbelief. I thought, how could they possibly set such a low bar? Needless to say, that overconfident smirk got cleanly wiped off my face when the prospect of hitting well below that threshold became a very real possibility.
But back to my original point. Sure, you can lower the grades today and it *might* garner some additional interest, but it's certainly conveying the wrong message: school isn't supposed to be easy. Nothing worth doing is. Since when are we trying to teach people that if they do something badly enough the system will just be made easier for them to coast through?
Moreover, it'll just make the fallout worse when they get into higher education and get absolutely trounced by material that is no longer dumbed down for the masses - but curved against the best and brightest. Unless, of course, that system is "improved" too.
(1) that post was obvious troll - I've seen the same thing c&ped two or three times already.
(2) You can easily ask numbers how they feel. Ex. my account number is a happy number (yes those exist, check out Wikipedia)
Ok, 2 was a bad joke, but please don't feed the trolls.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I had a Biology professor that could make multiple choice science tests that actually tested scientific reasoning skills (not just memory skills). He'd present the results of a single experiment and then offer a multiple statements that might (or might not) be derivable from the outcome of the experiment. The devilish part (and the part that tested reasoning versus memory) was that many of the statements would be true, but NOT derivable from the experiment. Students that memorized facts and picked the true statements based on their memory of those facts would get the answer wrong.
Of course, I suspect that the Brits want to turn science into a set of dumb facts, and that would be a shame because it misses the entire point of science.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Or maybe not exactly the right way, but relatively right. It's not good that students in less demanding fields get good grades with little effort while bright young people who choose science are discouraged by harsh grading. Changing grade schemes of course doesn't make science any easier, and the teaching could often be improved dramatically, but why should students not get good grades for the same effort and relative achievement compared to other majors?
Bill Nye, The Science Guy.
It's entirely possible to make multiple choice tests considerably more difficult and telling than the average one, just take off 1/4-1/3 a point for each wrong guess. That way it's only profitable to guess if the student can eliminate 1-2 answers, or has a good feeling about a particular one.
Or you could be like my one professor and simply make all four answers synonyms of each other, or make two obviously wrong answers and two that seem equally right... Though I suppose that really just pisses off students and favors guessing as much as a little (but not a large) amount of knowledge.
Of course this won't be done, and is yet another example of just how weak society is becoming. But hey, on the bright side it looks like Europe is following the same path as the US...
I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
They've been dumbing down exams in England for years. I was at school when they switched from O levels to GCSEs, so I did both. I saw one of the lower level GCSE maths exams and it was a joke; given an advert for a cooker with a numerical cost, the student was asked to write the price in words. Huh??
I took O, AO and A level maths and they were hard. But by god I worked for them thanks (in College anyway) to an amazing maths teacher. I didn't get great grade but I earned them.
Since then the emphasis has been on getting as many students to pass with high grades as possible, education be damned. They don't care about making students think; maybe that explains the state of British society.
Thank god I emigrated years ago.
Whilst not condoning it, I think it should be clarified (as the summary seems a little unclear) that this is for the lower tier exam, which is the one that you can only score the maximum of a'C'-grade in, and as such probably wouldn't be taken by the sort of person persuing a particularly scientific or numerate A-level or career. I think the logic (flawed or otherwise) is to try and only slightly alienate the non-scientists, rather than completely elienate them. This measure doesn't apply to the bulk of more able students.
Just hand out a pass or a fail. Don't give grades. That's my theory. If you really are going to give grades, please don't dumb down the tests. Keep the tests real but adjust the scores upwards so that the median gives the students encouragement. One major difference between the UK and the USA is that, in the UK, above 50% is considered OK. In the USA, anything below 80% is starting to look not so good. So I dumbed down my tests in the USA to increase the scores instead of merely adjusting the scores upwards by a fixed percentage. In retrospect, I think this was the wrong thing to do. Anyway, the problem with dumbing down the tests or merely upping the scores is that the really good students shine less.
Six munfs ago I cuddent even spel enjineer - and now I is one!
At the bottom of the
It's the biggest problem we have in education. Showing the students the context of the material. We take all this knowledge which exists out of it's context, transfer it to a classroom... And instantly make it utterly irrelevant.
WTF use is a quadratic equation in a book? Not much. But to calculate the potential yield of a field of produce it is useful.
Deleted
Dumb science down, and you get dumb scientists.
Well said.
Even when I was at school in the UK quite a few years ago now, the slide downhill was starting: people were moving away from the experimental basis and into rote learning of "science". Leaving aside the fact that teaching by rote is far less effective than teaching through practical experience, that step alone means a whole generation are growing up thinking that science is about an absolute truth, when in fact the whole point is that all you ever have is theories that are consistent with the experimental evidence so far, and which may be falsified by future experiments.
Every year in the UK, after 20 or so years of ever-increasing examination results for school kids, we repeat the same national "debate": government proclaims that standards are rising, parents say that others are just bitter that the kids of today are smarter than we were, school officials tell everyone how much better today's teaching methods are... and university and industry leaders look at the fact that effectively identical exam questions have now appeared on first-year university papers instead of A-levels* where they were a few years ago, or at A-level instead of GCSE*, and they the fact that examination results that used to distinguish the top 5% of the population now only identify the top 25% or more, and they see the reality as clear as crystal.
The rot started when O-levels were dropped in favour of GCSEs, and naturally progressed through a succession of "friendlier" study materials and examination systems that focus on things like "interpretation" and "analysis" — without actually teaching the underlying principles to do those things, nor giving sufficient exposure to basic knowledge to appreciate them. Now we are approaching the final insult: syllabus set by the politics of the day. For example, instead of studying physics and geography, pupils will learn about the perils of global warming. If we carry on this way, then instead of asking things like how global warming really works, what it's doing to our planet's ecosystems, and what if anything we should do about it, tomorrow's scientists are just going to be accepting that Global Warming Is A Fact(TM), and behaves however they were told it behaves in a classroom, and can be solved by political means alone. And this is just one example of a somewhat controversial area of science that is being undermined; it is by no means the only one.
We need to get back to teaching science in science classes, and we need to stop putting up with pathetic kids bleating about how it's too hard and they'd rather do media studies or home economics or some other subject that's regarded as an easier option. There is a place for all these things in education, but they are not interchangeable.
* For our non-UK friends: A-levels are usually taken at 18, and GCSEs at 16. Most pupils would take perhaps 8–10 GCSEs and those who stay on post-16 would typically take 2–4 A-levels.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Seriously, why do science and math need to be dumbed down? This development will soon also spread to university education (so that people don't experience too large a gap when they graduate from high school), such that tomorrow's MSc or maybe even PhD will be today's BSc.
And these "dumbed-down" scientists and engineers will design the machinery we entrust our lives with day in day out.
I, for one, am not comfortable with sitting in a plane designed by someone who thinks "drag" is "some fruitcake in a dress."
He's mainly speaking about people who are going to get frustrated and quit due to their lack of aptitude.
The problem is those people lack aptitude.
I myself have certain issues with regards to upper level science...Mainly, my capacity to understand theory is kickin but my math skills don't match. So, while I can hold my own in a discussion of theory, I don't have the staying power when it gets down to brass tacks.
I had to take a certain number of physics classes for my degree, and like these tests, there was a decent amount of multiple-choice (some were 100%). My math skills aren't top notch, but my multiple choice skills are through the roof, so I blew through 4 semesters of physics with an easy A average. It may reflect accurately my aptitude for theory, and multiple-choice elimination, but it does not reflect my ability to do the practical calculation that the tests were supposed to measure.
In short, I think it's a crappy idea, and it will result in a lot of people thinking that they have a level of skill that they do not possess, and result in a lot of professors having an incorrect understanding of the comprehension of their students. I know my limits, and I'm never going to be in a position where people are going to be risking their lives on my physics skills, but that is not true of everyone, and dumbing down that sort of science could have serious real world consequences.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
... flawed to begin with. I can go around asking nurses and Dr's questions in my highschool math and science textbooks they can't answer. This whole idea they are going to remember much of anything they do not DIRECTLY use or is relevant is pretty stupid to begin with. As far as I'm concerned if you're not using it or were insanely interested in it when you were learning it you're not going to remember much, period.
The average IQ is for many populations is roughly ~100, not exactly stellar. The truth is many schools just don't have the high quality students to do many of the harder classes, so they make harder classes easier to digest for kids who are slower or cannot cope with remembering loads of information (provided they are even that interested to begin with).
IMHO education is totally fucked up, the whole rote learning thing while useful for basics sucks for advanced stuff, advanced stuff you have to USE or you'll lose it. Lastly most kids should be learning what they are actually INTERESTED in, instead of stuff they aren't going to even remember 5-10 years down the line. After 5-10 years what was the point in the beginning? I'd really like to know.
I'd really like to see adults 3,6,8 years out of highschool or college re-tested (without any studying allowed) and see how much they 'remember' that is not directly related to their jobs, I mean seriuosly. We'd save a lot of money and time instead of just filling slots and teachers and administrators pockets with money at both primary and post-secondary education.
That would be like a car company wanting to improve acceleration and efficiency in it's cars by testing them all on a downhill slope.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
The example test given is horribly stupid. It is a mixup of easy trivial answers, with a few where arguably more than one answer is correct, and some are outrigth wrong.
for example, you're asked what kind of radiation will damage eyes and cause skin-cancer. Now obviously they want UV as the "rigth" answer, but infact xray will *also* cause that in the rigth dosis. so both are correct.
Or how about this gem: (question 19)
What is the advantage of using digital signals in radio-broadcast ?
a) digital signals travel quicker than analogue.
b) digital signals carry more information than analogue.
c) analogue signals travel more quickly than digital.
d) analogue signals can carry more information than digital.
The "correct" answer is a), digital signals travel quicker. Which is complete bullshit. A analogue or digital signal sent down say an electrical cable will both travel at the speed of C in that material, simple as that. Boggles the mind.
If this shows the competence of the teachers, no wonder the pupils end up ignorant of science....
You know, some countries still have school education syllabi which aim to stretch the minds of the average and above-average students. These countries understand the importance of doing so. The role of education is NOT to have everybody pass. Just because you hand out more A grades does NOT mean the teaching has improved! If you aim your education level low and present hardly any challenging material and tests, you've catered for the lowest common denominator at the expense of the smart or hard-working kids.
Now, I'm not about to suggest to the next generation to learn Mandarin, but UK kids are falling well behind developing countries - of this I have a truckload of first-hand experience.
It's the technology that's making our kids stupider. The boobtube has done its damage.
I know, I know... Get off my lawn!!
The game.
is that the standards are set by "educators" who had trouble with it to start with. I'm sure if you ask any science teacher they'll tell you that they're fine with most of the class getting crappy grades as long as they get a good education. Nowdays it's all about huggy-feely brigade saying "Gosh, I felt so bad failing math, why should my kids go through the same experience". In my day, which wasn't so long ago, there were 5 A students in the class of 40, and it's the way it should be.
Check out questions 6 and 7, on page 3 - but I'll type them below:
- 6. Anne looks in the mirror at her eye. Which part is used to help identify her?
- 7. People's eyes are used as personal identification: in hospitals, at airports, at school, and/or at home.
Am I the only one who feels a little perturbed by 16-year olds being introduced to iris scanning in such a relaxed, everyday, and as-if-it's-infallible manner?I simply think it's odd because that form of identification is not common in the UK at all - sure, it's used on entry to the US via airports (I believe) but not on this end, and not really anywhere else I can think of.
Posted as AC as I only ever read, not write. Been reading for years but never felt the need to point something out.
Wow, talk about painting with a wide brush. If you find that fellow students who study the sciences are elitist, and you dislike it when they take the pi** out of you, stop associating with them and focus on your own gaols. No sense bitching about something you have no control over. Furthermore, if you are actually attending a college, as opposed to a collage (and I imagine inserting yourself into a collage might be very difficult) I suggest you spend more attention to composition, grammar and spelling.
I refer you to the campaign for real education at http://www.cre.org.uk/.
A lot of concerned parents and education professionals. Their website is a mine of information and comparisons on this subject.
All the information you could want and only a click away.
What does this have to do with the article? The increase from ~55 to 70% "low demand" questions refers to GCSE exams, not A Level.
IIRC, the lower level maths and science exams were for students who would be totally unmotivated when they saw the real ones. I think the highest possible grade for those exams was a C, and they'd need fairly much 90% to get that. Most students were expected to get a D, which would show that they had some basic understanding but no real grasp of the subject, as it should. (The alternative, at the time, being no maths qualification at all and therefore no maths teaching.)
A good engineer won't tell you x sounds better than y, but they'll strive to make what you hear sound just like what was originally played. A unity transfer function isn't 'mightier--then-thou', it's a unity transfer function. It's episteme. As for the rest of your diatribe, it's just guff. Enjoy your PhD, and maybe try working on some of those 'grammer and spelling skills that are lacking in the technical' before you secure tenure at which ever prestigious institution it is that'll have you.
Even when I did GCSE's 12 years ago, the science exam was trivially easy. Admittedly I'm quite a good scientist, but I found the paper simple to the point of being insulting - having worked for 3 years for it, I objected to being asked stupid questions such as "Here is a picture of some plastic water pipes. Why are they made of plastic?". It seems to me that:
1)In order to make science "more interesting", we should make it more rigorous, and more challenging. At the moment, it's just dull (unless the teachers can ignore the syllabus and not focus on the exams). Health and safety mania doesn't help. [I was lucky: my teachers had a healthy contempt for the more idiotic rules - we were always sensible, but didn't treat 0.1 molar acids as being more dangerous in the lab than in the kitchen]
2)We shouldn't worry so much about less able students being put off science; we should care about the bright ones being put off.
3)A C is not a decent pass grade - it's the lowest grade that isn't a "fail". D,E,F grades are worthless. Likewise, it's simply absurd to consider doing A-level physics without also doing maths.
4)You can't run before you can walk. The current approach is to supplant the "dry" things like mechanics by "sexy" things such as Fusion,Quantum,etc. But the "hot topics" are too hard, so they get covered at a very simplistic level. That just isn't satisfying - there's none of the excitement that comes from suddenly *understanding* how (part of) the real world works.
Currently, in a vain attempt to make everyone aware of the basics of science, we're denying our brightest pupils the ability to actually *do* real science. And by dumbing it down (either by making it very easy, or only covering the "sexy" stuff), there's no thrill of actual discovery left.
UK Teachers are too afraid to teach anymore. The moment they attempt to enforce classroom discipline they are accused of being paedophiles or murdered by immigrant children. (Who are later refused deporation under the human rights act and are thus provided for at the taxpayer's expense.)
capcha: acquire
In fairness, the 'telescope' question (oops, spoiler!) that's getting all the headlines is probably the dumbest question on the paper. I'm not adverse to having a question on any exam paper that pretty much anyone who has sat the course can answer.
The problem, in my opinion, is not so much the dumbing down of science for non-scientists - it's the removal of a challenging and worthwhile option for the scientists (or potential scientists). 'Combined Science' (or just 'Science') is pretty much the only GCSE (first set of formal exams, sat at 16) option in the vast majority of state schools, and it *does* seem to provide a good grounding for students whose primary focus is arts, humanities, etc. I think this much compulsory (and relatively approachable) science is a good thing - in the same way that science students should be taking some small degree of foreign languages, humanities, etc, at least up to this first level.
Science students, though, would have to be very lucky (or have parents prepared to pay) to study GCSEs specifically in Physics, Chemistry or Biology. The shallow background from a combined science course is not challenging enough for those with a real interest in one or more of the sciences, and is not enough preparation for A-level (exams at 18) where students pick a much smaller number of subjects to study in more depth, and the sciences are seperated. (Typically it's 10 subjects at GCSE, of which combined science can sometimes count as two, but three subjects (possibly with a fourth or even fifth specialisation, such as Maths, Further Maths and Statistics) at A-level). Certainly when I was at school, one of the last years of readily-available individual science GCSEs, those students who joined the A-level classes with only Science GCSEs really struggled in comparison to students with similar abilities but GCSEs in the relevent individual disciplines.
From talking to people - both staff and students - since, it seems that this bottle-neck is moving up the chain. A-levels only have a fixed 2-year window to teach, and so with having to start from a lower level to accommodate the majority of students with no prior specialisation, the level at the end of the two years is lower. This means people are coming into degree courses in Physics with the same good Physics A-level grades, but less knowledge - and so we're seeing the stretch out to 4-year courses that other posters have mentioned.
We don't 'water down' history by forcing everyone to *only* learn it in a broad-but-shallow bundle with geography, economics and sociology, or French with German, Spanish and Italian, so why is science treated in this way?
Note that I'm quite in favour of these broad-but-shallow options for 'secondary' subjects, but the opportunity should be there for students who have the aptitude and the direction to be challenged in their chosen field.
This is so fucking stupid. Can't say much more really.
Amen. While I can't speak for the UK, as I have a PhD in Immunology I can certainly speak for the United States. People who are already interested in science are leaving the profession in droves. While an undergraduate in the 1990s, quite a few of my classmates who were graduating with a BS in Biochemistry left for non-science professions such as banking or consulting because the pay was much better. I attended a graduate program at a top university (the Immunology program is consistently ranked in the top ten), and of my 'class', ony two of nine (includes myself) continued on for a post-doc (some went into medical writing, others consulting, and some chose non-college level teaching). The problem isn't the love of science, the problem is pay. To put numbers behind what I'm saying, after 5.5 - 6 years of graduate school (the average length of a PhD program in the biological sciences), you have the option of leaving science, going onto industry as a glorified technician, or continuing on to a post-doc position (the good industry jobs require several years of post-doc experience as do academic positions). The salary at my institution are as follows:
Years of Experience - Salary
0 - $35000
1 - $36050
2 - $37131
3 - $38245
4 - $39392
5 - $40574
6 - "end" of post-doctoral training
(you either find a job, or continue on as an "instructor", doing the same job)
To put this in perspective, the median income in in the United States is $48000 . My university is on the upper end of the post-doc salary range. Our youngest graduate student are ~27 or so when they graduate. Several have 2 - 3 years of working experience before they join graduate school. So the people making the salaries listed above are ~28 - 34 (minimum), with a PhD. I might add, that the post-docs at my institution just started receiving retirement benefits three years ago.
Oh, but wait, it gets better. According to two recent Nature editorials (Nature is one of the top scientific magazines - More Biologists but Tenure Stays Static. Nature, 448:848-9; Indentured Labour. Nature 448:839-40) the percentage of post-docs receiving tenure track positions is now 30%. This certainly jives with what we're seeing here as most post-docs (the high quality post-docs, ignoring those who shouldn't move on) aren't able to find a job. Industry is saturated as well. If a post-doc is able to find a tenure track position, the pay (our University is at the high end) is ~$70,000 per year. After seven years, the individual undergoes review, and if they are granted tenure, the salary jumps to $120,000 per year (most people are >40 at this point - excpt for some of our foreign born faculty).
In contrast, my colleagues (at least the six I still keep in touch with) who left science after receiving their BS were all making over $100,000 per year before I finished with my PhD. Most of those who were in my graduate program and left science after their PhD are making over $100,000 per year. Those of us who stayed with science, most of us make well under 100k per year, and those that make more are all in industry.
Smart people don't join science. The hours are long, the pay is low, and our job prospects are highly uncertain. Those in government can change the scientific curriculum all they want in an effort to 'encourage future scientists', but they're all missing the point and addressing the wrong problem.
So what I hear a lot about is NOT teaching better but increasing grades and look where that has gotten the US. A generation of spoon fed kids who get pissed when they realize the college they are in tries to challenge them. I graduated HS back in '98 and the shift was well under way then, more benefits for the 'slow' kids, less for the gifted. If you are 'slow' (don't read handicapped here), you get special teachers and special dummed down classes for you, study hall breaks and whatnot, then you are rewarded for having a 3.5+ GPA. Then there are other people (not saying we are gifted) but worked our asses off taking advanced math and physics in high school. We get 3.5+ or higher but it doesn't matter because the curve is killed and weighted classes didn't exist. Luckily we have ACT and SAT to even things out just a little but because the classes were dummed down we are unprepared for the ACT/SAT. A good bright student can teach themselves how to take the entrance exams but then why did they go to HS in the first place?
As far as I can tell with our recent programs initiated, this has only gotten worse since I graduated and students have gotten lazier. I remember a prof of mine explaining comprehensive exams at the undergrad level. Piece of paper, write down what you learned in this class. I didn't take any test like that but you see the point. We teach kids now how to cram and get good grades, we don't teach them to have a passion for the material and explore their world. Personally my kids will go to private school, of my choosing where I can look and see what teaching methods are used and the kind of student that makes it through the system. You should learn something, not just feel good about yourself, a good teacher can help both but unfortunately even the best teacher can be beat down by bureaucracy. Perhaps if enough of us support private schools the State will figure out what a sucessful program is and start enforcing educational standards than Kansas idiocracy.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
The real problem is not that science and math are scary, but that society has hyped all the wrong alternatives to engineering and science careers.
Instead of praising these jobs as the elemental building blocks of modern society and civilization, they are poked fun at or regarded and regarded as jobs for people with a lacking social life and no ambition. Math and science is depicted as extremely difficult, and the payoff as inadequate, especially in this society where the individual is extremely important, where payoff for the society in general has no worth. "What do I care if it does not benefit me and me alone?" Science and engineering for the sake of truth, knowledge and society is passé.
What is hyped instead are certain molds for the youth of today.
"Hey girls, be like Paris Hilton! By being a stupid spoiled whore who has not contributed anything to society, ever, you will be popular with all the guys! Just periodically leak porn videos of yourself on the internet and watch your bank account grow and the crowds cheer!"
"Hey boys, become a generic popstar! You too can become famous and rich with no work besides being a capricious, insufferable asshat who is known mostly for violent outbursts and sex escapades with underage girls!"
That the opposite works, that you can also hype engineering rolls like that, was proven when Silicon Valley began to boom and had its own "superstars" emerge, prompting many young people to pursue an engineering career.
I strongly suggest that any parents out there with kids in school actively remove them from the public education system and look at an internationally recognised qualification, independent of political control:
The International Baccalaureate.
http://www.ibo.org/
Deleted
Hey, science is easy. Dead easy. The problem is that science is taught as a religion. "Remember things" is all we've ever asked to do. In the eight years it took me to get out of Secondary School Hell, I've never been given the occasion to actually TEST by the Scientific Method any idea I've had. There were answers to all my questions already, but I just might have remembered SOMEthing if I'd discovered it myself!
But teaching Science in that way would make kids learn that there are effects and causes to everything, and maybe even that they can all be discovered and modelled. That is very near critical thinking, thus dangerous. Not going to happen at this point in this world. Maybe later, but I'm not counting on that...
The news is about "The UK is going to lower its requirements regarding what science facts kids have to know before they can get unemployed." Big deal.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
I stopped reading when you said astrology is a kind of science.
"Students taking GCSE scienc[sic] have a choice of two tiers, or papers. The foundation tier assesses grades G to C and the higher tier assesses grades D to A*.
The Government claims that exams are structured in this way to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to show what they are capable of without being thrown off course by questions that are too hard or too easy. However, many experts believe that this approach to science leaves some students poorly prepared to pursue the subject at A level."
That's nonsense. Yes, people studying for the lower tier exam won't know the stuff they need to know for the A-level. That's not a problem, since people studying for lower tiers are people who are expected to get an E or lower (or at least, have a significant chance of getting that low). Such people aren't going to be carrying the subject on to A-level, are they?
But in end that makes the results worthless. The universe does not make itself easy in order to accommodate those who live in it. Progress comes from the long and hard work needed to wrest the subtle secrets from nature's hidden glory.
If you read 3 books a week are they all called "how not to spell"?
America, Home of the Brave.
What about question 6:
"Identification using eyes. Anne looks in the mirror at her eye. Which part is used to identify her?"
What has this got to do with science? Identification of people by their eyes? Big brother says "train 'em up early".
When I did A-level maths ('96), I saw questions on old 80's O-level maths papers that were comparable to our A-level questions.
A brilliant troll. Bravo, sir!
As a physics teacher in the UK, I didn't think things could get any lower. I wrote an article on how crap the new science syllabus is that's gotten a lot of attention. Glad to hear that they think the tests should be easier. Perhaps they should look at the test that I made up as an example.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38575
Somebody please look at Question 30 on the exam paper linked to in the article and tell me I'm imagining things. Please!
The conclusion that you assume is that by making it easier people will become more interested. The problem in science is that it is HARD TO TEACH... I remember when I was a teenager there were good science teachers and REALLY bad science teachers. And when you need to teach abstract concepts like "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" you better be a good teacher since it is non-intuitive.
Let me illustrate. If you have an algebraic equation A + B where a = 2 and B = 3 then the answer is? 5! You don't need a great teacher for algebra because you can deduce.
Now take the example of a bucket with water and you swinging it around your head. The physics says that there is a force sending the water towards you, even though you are swinging the heck out of it. That is completely non-intuitive and requires understand the concepts of action and reaction. Thus to fully grasp it you need to be able to teach well. If you don't the student is just as puzzled before.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I replied to you, but clicked on the wrong link... Sorry about that...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
According to the article, the answer to question 34 is 'B'. What am I missing? The Earth is 6370km deep. Going from the surface to the centre and back at an average of 10km/s would take 1274s. 1274!=560... I really hope I'm being stupid here, I really do....
Exactly. Now all they care about is making sure you can read product prices in newspapers.
Here in the USA in the 1980's we made a major push to get science taught to school kids. Every one of us kids thought we would grow up to become astronauts. The result is now we have a generation of cynics who still can't point out planet Earth on a map of the globe.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
I assure you that multiple choice is not the same thing as "low demand". Multiple choice questions, when well designed, can be fiendishly difficult tests of whatever abstract concept you wish to examine. The national medical board exams, for one thing, are multiple choice.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Hehe, we always lead the way, and the Brits follow. ;-)
Good multiple choice tests can be very hard, and not "reward guessing". See, for instance, the mathematics GRE. I'd like to see anyone "guess" through that.
A good test gives no advantage to random guesses, but some advantage to educated guesses -- which is, after all, the point.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
http://www.education-otherwise.org/
While it's more relevant specifically to the UK, there are a lot of links to international material there.
or drop me a line at my spamcatcher - misterdragonfly@yahoo.com - and i'll point you to some of the other stuff that i've found. It WILL be a lot of work to home educate , but compared with the hassle that's cropping up at the schools in the UK, it's worth doing.
You should also look around for some of the local groups of home educators, so she gets the chance to socialise with folk her own age. They'll also be able to give you advice before you start.
Good luck to you, and give me a shout if you need help.
It's undeniable that across the board (not just in science), exams in the UK have been getting easier. Compare an old O-level paper against the modern "equivalent" GCSE paper in almost any subject, and you'll find almost no resemblance (a better comparison is an old O-level paper against an equivalent modern A-level paper). The same goes for A-levels. And this isn't only happening at Foundation tier - it happens at Intermediate and Higher tiers too, and as a result, universities and employers are having a much harder time selecting applicants based upon their academic qualifications.
The government wants everyone to get their 5 A*-C grades (the benchmark) and be as employable as possible as a result. And over the past couple of decades, the percentage doing so has skyrocketed - not because people are getting more intelligent or are being taught better, but because exams have been getting easier and easier. I once saw a Foundation tier maths question which listed several integers and asked the candidate to pick an even number. This is GCSE, for crying out loud. This is what 16 year olds are meant to be doing, according to our education system. I don't care if it's the Foundation paper, this is ridiculous - people can achieve a C grade by answering such questions.
And what's going to happen if this continues? Well, for a start, employers and universities, some of which are swamped with applicants (I speak as a recent Cambridge applicant) are going to start raising the bar more and more - no longer will 5 A*-C grades suffice, it'll be 6, then 7, etc. and then all those extra GCSEs people have because they were made easier will be devalued. With propsals of an A** grade for GCSE and an A* grade for A-levels (God forbid), this doesn't look like it's going to end any time soon. In 5 years time, what good will the A** grade have done when it's worth the same as an A* currently is?
Some universities now ask for individual module marks in A and AS-levels, as well as asking for good grades in their own tests, such as STEP, BMAT etc. Even with a personal statement, a list of grades and perhaps even an interview, they still have a hell of a hard time deciding who to accept.
It's not just the government's fault either - I blame many of the schools that discourage people from taking subjects like maths, sciences and languages because they're seen as difficult subjects and will be detrimental to their position in the league tables, which are now just one big joke. Vocational GCSEs are sometimes worth up to 4 times as much as a normal GCSE. Is Cake Decorating really 4 times as important as Physics?
What's just as bad is the fact that iGCSEs (International GCSE, an extension of the GCSE syllabus, and arguably much more difficult), which some schools are changing to in response to the slipping standards of GCSEs, are not currently recognised. A school can be one of the best in the country and have 0 points in the league tables just because they're shunning GCSE and doing something more substantial. As a result, the uptake of iGCSEs (and other such alternative qualifications) has partly been hindered by school boards anxious about the tables.
The goal of the GCSE was to provide people with a good, compulsory minimum level of knowledge and understanding before they leave school, whilst providing a good "stepping-stone" for those who want to continue their studies. It now does neither. People being taught just the standard syllabus are left nowhere near as knowledgeable as they should be, and it seems that other than in the few places that teach well beyond the syllabus, gifted children are not given the means to flourish, or even be recognised as gifted. How many more modern-day Newtons are we going to waste before our education system is fixed?
"A deadlock has been reached. One task must die. We must now choose between murder and suicide."
Guessing around isn't going to be very helpful when they suddenly find themselves in real world problems! hah!
From next year 70% of the paper must consist of 'low demand' questions in the form of multiple choice or similar answers
I am sorry, but what is this '%' thing you keep writing after the numbers?
Every year my pupils get better results. Some this last year got 100% on the foundation paper exam. This is the lowest set in the year group, and they WERE setted correctly. The type of science we now have to teach is laughable and every year when I try to teach something a bit more complex I get stared at as if I'm some kind of ultra-genius. I assure you that I am not. I just know about scientific method and the ups and downs and ins and outs of science. You know what I mean when I say that.
I've seen debates on global warming and the like become the 'in thing' to teach, and frankly it disgusts me. Mark my words, it will be intelligent design next, and how the evidence for evolution AND ID can be argued and debated.
My pupils have no concept of useful mathematics either, certainly not useful for science as I understand it. So it seems that science isn't the only subject going down the pan.
This isn't a recoverable position in my view. Every year the results HAVE to get better, from a political point of view. If they didn't, schools would be blamed for it. Even introducing harder, 'real science' courses would not work as no bugger would take them up, risking failure.
I haven't mentioned the mole for a couple of years now in any meaningful capacity, so much so that 'the mole' is a funny concept to 16 year olds because of the name! I mean, I though it was funny the first time - haha, a MOLE! but I was 11 or so. But not to be taught the very concept and how powerful it is beggars belief. This situation is leading me to find other career options, seriously.
NEVER believe it when results go up every year. I've taught for 11 years now, and my pupils (bless em) are SIGNIFICANTLY less able than when I started teaching. In areas of thinking, vocabulary, logic, questioning and every other metric that you might want to use, they are inferior to the years before because of a continual poor syllabus.
I'll be back at work next week, when the management will give us all a pat on the back for 'record results', and along with a couple of others in our science department it will make us feel physically sick. I can't stand going in to work to see my school leavers get results anymore, because I can't stand seeing children being decieved into thinking they did well in science.
US Educational System is a JOKE. I work in a school district and I can tell you the top three reasons why it sucks so bad
... RIKKI LAKE (talk show host, I slept with my brother) , to wackos spewing their views of conspiracy theories, to the Resource (special ed) Teacher that I have NEVER seen actually instruct anyone anything. The last one is the one that drives me the craziest, because the kids that need the most help aren't getting it.
1) Parents don't care, even one's that pretend to.
2) Teacher Unions and Teacher Elitism.
3) Government Accountability (NCLB)
Most of what you said is true. However, things would really change if the good students just stopped showing up to school, and did what I've done with my kids. HOME SCHOOL.
You see, I care about my kids. I care enough to sacrifice things (stuff, materialism) so that my wife doesn't work, and can be at home with my kids. Let me tell you, it isn't easy. However, my youngest is 14 and is taking college classes, and will graduate HS with her AA degree in hand. My 17 studied abroad in Hungary for a year, and is also getting college credits.
The PUBLIC school system has no room for students like these. My kids are smart, but not necessarily genius (though I tend to view them that way). Sitting bored half to death in a school filled with children straight out of Lord of the Flies is not the kind of education I want for my kids.
That's the parent's side of things. If you have kids, care enough to protect them from what I'm about to say about teachers.
First off, before I go too much further, there are some very good, high quality teachers in the system. They ALMOST make up for the bad ones. I feel sorry for the good teachers, and many of them are good, they just cannot make up for the ones that are not.
The biggest problem with teachers is their attitude towards people like myself who show how flawed the system really is when they pull their kids out of the system. The looks I get from some teachers when I tell them my kids are homeschooled is one of contempt and horror. When I tell them my kids are in college, while ALSO doing their HS work, it is one of disbelief.
When academic issues are clear, and they realize that the system can't or won't deal with kids like mine, they often shift the topic to "socialization". If by socialization they mean teen pregnancy, drinking and drug use, and other mindless activities, my kids sure have missed out. However, as my 14 year old comes home from first day at college this year, telling the story of a lady sitting next to her not believing she is only 14, that she seemed more mature, I'll take that as a sign that her socialization is doing just fine.
Moving along, I have the luxury of walking into classrooms all day long, every day. I get to see the teacher's in the raw glory and shame. From a Home Econ classroom teaching sexuality from the master teacher
Lastly, the system itself is broken. When a teacher is required to have one-on-one teaching for 1 hour per day with special education kids, and has 3 of them in her class, and only 5.5 hours a day to teach, it only leaves 2.5 hours of instruction, per day, to teach all the other kids all of the required material. Then there are all the assessment testing, placement testing, Testing testing that goes on. Whole weeks of instruction disappear each year due to testing, assessments and such.
1) Parents need to care more and actually participate in educating their kids.
2) Teacher Unions need to stop protecting the truly aweful teachers, and teachers need to stop being so damn elitist.
3) The system is broken, and beyond repair. Trying to fix it at this point is useless. The more they try to fix it, the more it breaks (NCLB I'm looking at you!)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You're right! Make TRICKY questions!
....
of the following answers, which one is the answer to the following equation?
a) #1 only.
b) #2 only.
c) both #1 and #2.
d) None of the above.
That'd make them study.
But seriously, one of the worst things in school are automated exams. Unless of course they're evaluated by Artificial Intelligence machines capable of understanding human language (yeah right).
You can also try the BBC's GCSE Science multiple choice video quiz:
a mes/rurevising/videomain.swf
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/g
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
In my opinion, the major factor responsible for the apparently endless "improvement" in exam grades in recent UK history is, I believe, not (necessarily) that the exams are getting easier, but that the curriculum is very strictly defined and it is getting easier for teachers to teach *the curriculum*, knowing that the exams will consist of nothing that isn't on the curriculum.
In the past, students were expected to apply a certain amount of independent thinking and "thinking outside the box" (i.e. on subjects that perhaps weren't explicitly part of the curriculum); this happens very rarely now.
The fact remains that the following two facts are contradictory:
- UK universities are complaining about students "knowing less" when they arrive;
- GCSE and A Level grades are getting higher.
*Something* is wrong.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
It is an interesting approach. It certainly nailed the students who tried to get through on raw memorization or crib sheets. By the end of the symester, the more involved students were much more engaged and interested.
Know how this is crap? The god-transcends-all bit at the end. A real humanities type spits at the notion of god.
In the 60's, Richard Feynman evaluated science education in Brazil and concluded that science wasn't actually taught - just memorized. I wonder if the UK is going the same way...
I was a year or two behind you and remember that upheaval. I also remember when they bought calculators into the classroom too soon, all it made was people who could press buttons, but not learn math, but having talked to teachers at that time this trend had been ongoing since the late 60's (when so much of Britain imho was destroyed).
Thank God I emigrated too!
Perhaps they should just extend their logic a little more... how about just the 4 basic elements: earth, air, fire, water? the earth is flat? (2D geometry is easier than 3D, right?)
the government's desire to have so many young people go to university. In case you hadn't noticed in everyday life, most people just aren't that smart so the only way you can achieve it is to make things simpler. It runs from GCSE right up to degree level. It's a massive mistake. Our qualifications have been losing international respect for many years.
Another issue is that with so many people going to university, you can't possibly hope to pay for it all, so the whole experience becomes very expensive for young people. University should attract clever people and it should be for clever people. If the people coming out of universities with degrees are no smarter than anyone else, what is the point of it all?
The whole university experience has become so expensive that I have doubts whether I would go for a degree now. Back in 1994, I recived a grant and I think without that university wouldn't have been a real option. I worry that the next Newton or Einstein will take one look at the huge cost of it all, and how dumbed down it has become, and will just decide work at Tesco's instead.
Translation: I know shit about shit, but have this quirky religious belief that I know the vast majority of sensible people will reject, so if I just redefine what science is and what scientists do in a lowest-common-denominator ploy, then hey, my outrageous idiocies suddenly get equal footing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was lucky enough to do some IGCSE's and it was way harder than when I carried on upon returning to the UK and doing GCSE's again. I even remember in chemistry learning the properties of graphite in IGCSE's in detail that didn't come up until I was doing A levels.
Now, the question is why...
Even here in the US, where I work at a State University we see this dumbing down of science. For example, our College had one Organic Chemistry course that many science majors must take (ie Chem, Bio, Microbio). As many of you may know, chem courses (organic in particular) really weed out many of the weaker students. Some semesters up to ~40% of the students may drop or fail. So now they have come up with a watered down version of O Chem to stop the hemorrhaging of students. I have also heard the same thing for the Engineering Calculus series and the Engineering physics classes are also feeling the pressure from administration to pass more students, regardless if they learned the material.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Would you like a dollar, to tip the waiter, that brought you the cheese, to go along with your whine?
Just what is question 5 all about?
are completely meaningless if you encounter a student like I was. No, I mean "completely".
... a test which is "properly designed" leads to attacks like I employed, ignoring the answers which are too different (and thus wrong) and then choosing among the similar answers for which is most similar to the others. That will catch people who know what they are doing and make a simple mistake (misplaced decimal point or leave out a factor of 2 or whatever), but it will tell people who know nothing other than how to take tests which answer is the correct one.
When I was in school, I was the smartest kid my school had ever seen. As a result, I participated in every Math and Science competition that was available, and by my junior year (grade 11 for those who don't use the same terms we do) I was so good at them that it was just plain ridiculous.
My junior year, I participated in something called the Junior Engineering Technical Society contest. They had tests available in 4 subjects - math, physics, chemistry and biology. Of course I took math (that was my best subject), but the school also talked me into taking the Physics test even though Physics was only available to seniors there.
When I got the test (which was all multiple choice), I looked at it and really didn't understand anything there. So I started analyzing the answers given, and was able to decide which answer was most likely the one they wanted on most of the questions. When they graded the tests, I had placed second among people there.
All these places like Sylvan and so on say that they can teach you how to take tests. Maybe they can, though I doubt they really know as much about taking tests as I do. But the simple fact is, you can't consider multiple choice as an accurate gauge of knowledge. A test where all the wrong answers were completely random would have stopped me, but that wouldn't have fooled someone who did have a little knowledge of the subject
So what if Yorkshire wants out too then?
Then I suppose the question is - what's holding your nation together? coercion and force?
I remember my school exams, from learning about stuff we changed to 2 years of coursework and exam prep...
:)
I'm not sure how to fix it, but with the curriculum fixed by the government, the papers all set by an external body (which are fairly similar year on year but just
shift around the government curriculum a bit), it does get a bit boring... end of it I knew only what was required to pass the exams and virtually nothing that's actually useful.
But it gets you onto the next stage of education, do the same again, and finally you get to university where things are actually about learning rather than passing exams, yay
Is this new Science curriculum anything like the "Reform" Mathematics Curricula being taught in many US elementary schools since the 1990s?
This video explains how these "reform" methods are somehow "better". Like how 65 pages of travel and 35 pages on calculators are supposed to give children an understanding of math actually works.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
No, the only correct answer to question 20 is B.
C is wrong - in fact, the opposite is true. Digital recordings reduce the frequency range of the reproduced sound due to having to use a sample rate.
D is wrong as it is an analogue versus digital question, not an amplified versus non-amiplified question. Even allowing for that, CDs superseded audio cassettes and not vinyl players as you seem to think.
In an effort to make science easier some constants will have their values refined. The new values are to be:
PI 3
E 2
i 1
Further the set of mathematical operations allowed will be restricted to those in the following list:
+
And finally, the only numbers allowed will be the whole numbers.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
The answer is d! All of the others reference numbers, not letters. ;)
he was also probably the first teacher to grade a test with "pwned!".
I'm just starting my teacher training in physics in the UK and this news completely doesn't surprise me. I will be on of only 350 physics teachers being trained this year, and 25% of all schools in the country don't have a dedicated physics teacher. Basic scientific knowledge in England is abysmal, especially in the media. At least I will try and make a difference. Science doesn't need to get easier, I looked at the current syllabus and it's a complete joke. What it needs to do is get more interesting. Teach kids the basic principles (conservation of momentum, energy, forces, basical electrical systems etc) and then show them how it relates to their everyday lives. Teaching at the moment is all about fulfilling quota's and passing targets set by the government so that it looks good. We should stop using education just as an election tool and forgetting about the education part.
Have you any idea how complicated independence would be?
NHS, We already have an independent NHS Scotland.
driving licenses, We could devolve those to the...
passport authorities, as there are individual passport issuing offices over the UK, so no major problem in decentralising.
the BBC, As a strictly apolitical entity, it would not be a problem if the BBC took a few years to demerge into individual national public service companies (or for one constituent country to buy other countries out)
not to mention the Army, defence, etc.
The regiments all have a geographical drawn. Breaking the army would not require any major change in hierarchy.and government efficiency both sides of the border (London Underground versus Edinburgh's parliamentary building)
Actually, the Parliament debacle was managed by Whitehall (as was this year's Scottish election debacle). The only efficiency debate in Scotland is the one over the trams and the airport link.HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
All digital signals ride on an analog carrier, be it electromagnetic or etched in stone, ergo, the analog container must by definition carry more information.
Statistics test:
(1)Twas brisling, and the smithy toes
Did gyre and gamble in the wade:
All missy were the boor gives,
And the mom rates out garb.
True or false, the gyre of the smithy toes was within one standard deviation of the gamble of the smithy toes?
(2)Beware the Jabber wacky, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jujube bird, and shun
The furious !
True or false, the median weight of a Jabber wacky exceeds the median weight of a Banker snatch?
(3)He took his coral sword in hand:
Long time the man home foe he sought---
So rested he by the Tub tummy tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
True or false, given that the time the man home foe he sought has a standard deviation of 4 hours, the time spent resting by the Tub tummy tree was statistically significant?
(4)And, as in offish thought he stood,
The Jabber wacky, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffing through the bulgy wood,
And burbled as it came!
True or false, the standard deviation of the whiffing is greater than the standard deviation of the brubling?
(5)One, two! One, two! And through and through
The coral blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went gallium ping back.
True or false, gallium exhibits a negative correlation with snicker-snack?
(6)And hats the slain the Jabber wacky?
Come to my arms, my bearish boy!
O frab jous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
True of false, frab?
Extra credit, non true-false question worth 50% bonus:
Neglecting the effect of extra credit, and given that a passing grade is 65%, what fraction of students will statistically pass this test? What are the expected mean, median, and mode scores for this test? And what is the expected standard deviation in scores?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
> Dr Sinclair added that the changes would help to stop children being turned off by science. Ya, attract more stupid to science. That's just what we need, more people who think they're qualified scientists but don't understand the difference between an observed fact, and inference, and an opinion.
Even still, it's hard to see the benefit from future science students passing by guessing.
Obviously, he doesn't realize that scientists are actually psychics who get their answer by "guessing" up magic stuff beamed into their brains.
At least that's what I was taught, and it must be true 'cause I passed all my exams!
The swedish equivalent to the SAT uses such questions for the math part. Here is a practice example:
A,B and C are three different positive whole numbers. What is the mean average of the numbers?
(1) The sum of the two largest numbers are 130.
(2) The sum of the two smallest numbers are 110.
Enough information to solve the problem can be obtained from
(a) 1 but not 2
(b) 2 but not 1
(c) 1 together with 2
(d) 1 or 2 separatly
(e) Not from the two statements
(The answer is e btw)
It's all about teaching to the test.
Like the joke about the drunk looking for a contact lens, people pay attention to stuff like test scores because it's easy to measure, not because it's relevant.
Now, for the social sciences, if you wanted to inflate grades, there's a lot of ways to do that for an english lit class. You can give easier essay questions, or you can just be more generous when marking papers and exams.
But with math/hard sciences, that's a lot harder to do. Your answer to a high-school physics problem in Newtonian dynamics is basically either right or wrong.
So, if you wanna "cook the books", the way to do that is to dumb down the content. And then you frame it in the context of making "learning more fun" or "getting more kids interested in science".
Furthermore, this is usually done by professional educators, i.e., people who couldn't pass first-year calculus if it meant the firing squad. My ex is a teacher, and the one common denominator between her and her education friends is that a lot of them picked their careers around not having to take anything harder than undergrad stats math in university.
Not that everybody should be a geek, but people that can't do math if their life depended on it shouldn't be making decisions about how to teach science.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
...Schrödinger is actually famous for his wave mechanical approach to quantum mechanics. The cat was just a bad, but famous, example of the wierdness of quantum mechanics.
> show students how, for example, conducting an experiment or programming a simulation on a computer can be fun.
You must mean a nice scientifically-based example like that ice-blocked door in Bioshock, explained by the apparent fact that "the ocean down here is cold as a witch's tit and if you don't heat the pipes, they freeze". I guess that means that the ocean water around Rapture doesn't freeze because there's so much salt in it... I know, I know, it's hard to choose whether to laugh or cry.
I have done a lot of research on home school programs. I have both a 1 yr old son and a brother who will be entering 3rd grade this year. The brother has been on home school programs in addition to public school ever since he began struggling in Kindergarten. Now he is up at the head of the class and has confidence to spare.
Most people I talk to who home school do it instead of public school and prefer either http://www.abeka.com/A Beka or http://www.rodstaff.com/Rod and Staff because they want a Christian-based program that emphasizes traditional values. That's fine for them, but personally I feel that these programs emphasize bible stories at the expense of academic material. And yes I have perused both materials for K-2nd grade (ages 5-8 in the US) and is just my personal opinion.
Personally I am a big fan of the http://saxonpublishers.harcourtachieve.com/Saxon math program. These deal with nothing but math in such an incremental way that kids are always thinking "This is Easy" and "I can do this". My brother does about 1.5 years worth of material during the summer and spends the school year enjoying himself and socializing while getting what is (to him) basic math review. Yes I realize that such a repetitive approach is not for everyone but it worked wonders with him and he clearly enjoys it. The Saxon material has been consistently more challenging and comprehensive than the material covered during the school year.
A note on usage:
My brother has since kindergarten spent 2 hours every day during the summer (including weekends and vacations) on school work which includes Saxon math and/or reading a book of his choice. At first he was on http://hooked-on-phonics.com/index.cfmHooked on Phonics for reading review but now he reads for fun and doesn't require any extra help. He has done this ever since Kindergarten so he is used to it. At this point with your sister already being 11 you will likely encounter resistance. Remember you will only get out of ANY program what you are willing to put into it. Discipline (on you and your parents part) will be required. In his case he enjoys it since he knows he will be "better" than the other kids as a result.
Also our success is probably due to his actually being quite bright. He was just being under served by his school. We recognized it and took corrective action early.
Good Luck!
I have to read *3* *books* *a* *week* on average. Hah! I've been reading three-four books per week on average since the FIRST GRADE (not picture books either - adult books, 300-800 pages long on average) and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Grammar Nazi
The REAL scientists can just make due, as they have done throughout history. They might realize the fantasy that computing via machine will pick up the slack, then put the ignorant masses to work pushing buttons. Oh, wait, that is how research is conducted at the university and corporate levels.
Don't get me wrong, maths and sciences are necessary toward the progression of the race. However, let's be realistic. Advancement in the sciences will come through the actions of dedicated individuals. Regardless of what they are exposed to, their minds will always have questions to which they will seek out answers.
And yea, those questions are pretty lame. That is indisputable. My stance, however, remains the same.Thank God you did.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your tenuous grasp of English is exceeded by your lack of Internet knowledge. The free Firefox browser lets you check your spelling as you type. I assume you're still using Internet Explorer. Too bad you don't have any of that "technical knowledge" you decry.
What was once true, is no longer so
Grades count for getting into higher education. If someone with inflated grades gets there and can't handle it, they'll drop or get dropped. Grades count very little when it comes to getting job, and even good grades won't save your job if you're a fuck up.
Compare it to womens' dress sizes. As more women became obese, they changed the sizes so they wou'd "seem" smaller and make the women feel better. It hasn't worked. Those women are still obese and the label on their dresses hasn't made a difference.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
How are your pals jings and helpmaboab these days?
league tables and exam companies the schools are now judged on how well they're doing based an a collection of league tables - how many get grade a (or a*, or a**, not sure what the current number of stars is(1)), how many get a-c, etc. their position in the table affects their funding. so, they try to get as many kids as possible into the a-c bracket. even going so far as to 'discourage' kids who might be getting a d-grade or below from taking the exam. the other way to get everyone in the magic a-c bracket is to get them an 'easier' exam. and they have to buy these exam papers. so if you're a company selling 'easier' exams and the schools are looking for 'easier' exam papers, well, hey presto! the kids get the 'easier' exam papers. (1) - that's another scam the exam boards brought in to get more people falling into the grade a-c bracket, without the a* there'd only be 3 grades in that bracket rather than the 4 there are now)
My hope was that the initiative's goal would be making science easier. Increasing availability of the equipment needed, fostering science clubs and encouraging people to pursue an interest in how the world works. We are fundamentally a tool-making species, it isn't natural for us to go through life without questioning the inner workings of the universe.
Provide children with guidance, teach them how to evaluate a study to see if it's bunk or solid research. Teach skepticism, teach them to try out everything they are told. Science is the crucible within which we refine truth from the scummy dross of fiction.
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
After recently finishing a GCSE in all three of the basic sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) I have to say I was shocked and appalled at the questions on the test. The physics paper in particular was only 17.78% physics; the rest was ethics - "What are pros and cons of CCTV" - and the environment. Science should be made, in search of a better word, more difficult. An examiner cannot decide what is hard or difficult, science is about accurate or false. Yes, some of the concepts are harder to grasp than others but they are hard because they are hard, not because an examiner chooses them to be.
Are you lost? The BBC Have Your Say pages are red at the top...