Dumbing down science syllabus
 

This country really is going down the tubes :(

link

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

So the exams will be easier, the kids will get higher grades and in so making them look smarter,

Bad idea :td:

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

I think kids should be taught both "hard" and "soft" sciences... Not one over the other.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

It looks like the real education will take place in private schools, widening the gap between state and private pupils even further....

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Scandal.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Tis nothing new.

When I was at school (pre GCSE days) you had to do at least one science subject of which there were 4 choices, Chemistry, Biology, Physics and "Project Science". I did the latter which involved several areas of interest including Photography, Astronomy, Communications, Practical electrics, Metalurgy and a one other which I can't remember now.

Photography included making our own cameras and film right through to darkroom developing and framing a subject. Communications included Egyptian Heroglyphs through to Morse Code and Radio.

I found it a great alternative to "hard" science, for which I had no interest whatsoever.

What I think this latest thing is for, is to try and re-introduce some form of cookery lession back into the curriculum (all be it under the guise of science). Which given the microwave and ready meals is a skill sadly lacking in childrens upbringing these days.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Well, it's a decent idea to introduce "relevant" science but it should be to supplement the three core sciences, and to apply theory NOT instead of.

There's already a shortage of science students as it is.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

"Master the periodic table"..?

What's there to master at GCSE? You learn the halogens, the alkali metals and the transititions. If you do triple award, you learn more about ionic and covalent compounds, etc.

Newtons' Laws. How many people actually know what they are? Few, I should think.

Step in the wrong direction, as far as I can see. I emmensly enjoyed the DNA and human genome side of Biology at GCSEs and thought it was very worthwhile, so genetic engineering is fine as far as I can see.

Healthy eating isn't a science, it's something monkeys can do. With all this waste of time with 'Citizenship' and 'PSHE', can't 'healthy eating' be covered in that?

We might have a lot of 14 year olds that know that racism is bad, but nobody's going to teach them who David Blunkett is.

Teaching? "Healthy eating" lessons sound more like spoonfeeding to me.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Why? I've never come across any circumstance whatsoever where knowing the periodic table would come in useful.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Quiz nights? :confused:

I suppose it's useful if you are going to study chemistry at a higher level though.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

In that case grab the co2 and put the fire out ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

I've never found perpendicular bisectors useful outside of maths class, should I be complaining?

Or do you want to undertake some sort of massive educational rethink? ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Errrr .... :erm: ???? What ????
__________________

Never found them that useful inside of maths either ;)

I'm just saying that rather than say 'isn't it terrible they're dropping this traditional subject' we should be thinking about why children study particular subjects in the first place, and if we can make room for useful subjects like nutrition by edging out the, err, less widely required ones, that's got to be a good thing surely ??

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Incog gets out her deckchair and the iced tea. :)


I want a deckchair smiley... ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

i guess it all depends what sort of job you end up doing..

i actually read this this morning in the metro (classy paper i know) I can understand the reasoning for those who really can't cope with "hard" science but I do not think it should replace the option to learn it totally

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

You could allways get one of these, but i recomend filling the balloons with He and not H, numbers 2 then 1 on the periodic table i think ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

hmm - not sure.

This 'soft' science almost sounds like a return to 'home economics', which actually had some use, in my opinion.

The whole school curriculum issue has been a political football for too long. Ultimately schools are aware they are being measured & compared & seek ways to 'perform' within that narrow framework.

If this signifies a decision that because 'pure' science is considered too difficult, 'performance' will improve via a softer option, then I think it is wrong.

If it is an genuine attempt to spark interest in the science underlying food & genetics etc, then it could be a good idea...

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

I think that's about as likely as a pot-bellied pig with wings.

It's quite simple, when you think about it. Stupid kids = can't cope with proper sciences. Stupid kids = most likely to eat themselves.. er.. stupid. :dozey:

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Well, they could use some nutrition tips then ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

- a lot of truth in correlating diet with behaviour/performance in school.

perhaps we just had good teachers, but science for me was mostly really interesting - loads of stuff going pop, bang, glow, fizz - but we were taught nothing about nutrition, and were shown how to make a teapot stand, but not how to cook ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Thats the one! :tu: :D
If they stop teaching the periodic table then you can kiss the future of chemical R&D goodbye in this country....

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

The point is, it's a nice 'n easy cop out. :td:

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Strange kid. :erm:
And so you should- but I did Chem for three years at uni and even then, never learnt the periodic table. You learn the trends and get the blasted table in the exams anyway.

Easy.
- An object will be at rest or move with constant velocity unless an external resultant is applied to it
- The force applied to an object is equal to the rate of change of momentum of the object in unit time
ie F = d/dt (mv)
- For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Yes that was interesting- more so after GCSE!
If having some form of "applied science" shows kids that science is relevant and fun, then it might just get them interested in the "core" and then increase the interest in physical sciences and remove some of the aura from it. That can only be a good thing but as I said, it should be AS WELL AS not INSTEAD OF the core.

I can only think this is because of the shortage of science students so there's a resultant shortage of those wanting to train for PGCEs etc, leading to teacher shortages and covering with people with less science qualifications making the subject easier to teach thus lowering the standards: the whole cycle then perpetuates.

Go Nottm and have a look at how fat the general public, on their diet of Maccy Ds and ready meals, are. Then tell me that healthy eating should be common sense again.
__________________

Not really. You can use instinct and you always get the table where you need it.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

My concern here is where it says "The benefits of genetic engineering" as if it's a propaganda tool... :disturbd:
__________________

The point is that students should get a grounding in *all* areas of knowledge. You might never use it in the future, but just because someone says they want to be a fireman or a doctor or whatver when they grow up doesn't mean that they won't ever need that information or change their minds and career path later on.

An object will keep moving in one direction if no other forces are applied to it.

The acceleration of an object is determined by the force applied to it.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Edit: ADDENDUM - Damn, beaten to it by nffc! :grind: ;)

Monkeys may be able to do it, but monkeys don't have Mickey D's!!

Just another bloody politician...!

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

We'll see...nothing is set in concrete in education anyway.. :)














Mind it would be more to the point if the students had a session on what happens to a Minister for Education if they are immersed in concrete as a part of one of the modules.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

I think its a good idea, The topics they are being introduced to are more relevant to this time and more useful. Who on earth needs to know about the periodic table in real life

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

I think that is why it's called science, its part of real life, if it wasnt it would be called science fiction ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Well someone needs to know it,otherwise where are our future chemists to come from?

We will need some folk to know and use hard science I'm afraid.I just hope that they don't throw out the baby with the bathwater with these proposals.

Succesive stupid governments always kneejerking about education because they won't take it out of the political arena. The end result looks like an cake produced by a succession of committee's that's never seen a cake. :rolleyes:

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Mine are better as well, including the analog of Newton's original form of law 2. Of course, the real originals were written in Latin.

Interesting that "classical" mechanics still holds, except in extreme (quantum) cases.

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Oh, I totally agree. Everybody needs to know how to work out what their 'leccy bill will be, so it all comes in handy.

This is why there's a need for doing all three sciences at GCSE. The problem with some schools is that they opt to allow students to only do a third of each science, which means that their grounding is so grounded it's useless.

True - but, we still waste all this time on citizenship and other related targets setting. If Personal Social and Health Education can't teach people that oranges and apples are healthy and greasy fries aren't, no amount of attempting to explain how the human metabolism works will! :rolleyes:



Again, true...

I always wonder... schools teach history, geography and religious education. Yet, they don't teach current affairs.

Now, being the grammar school boy that I am, politics is all very funny to us all (well, some of us - I normally pretend I'm paying attention whilst I'm actually looking at some blonde's a*se, but I'm straying off here.. :dozey: ). But I wonder, at the crappy ****-pot comprehensives that exist (linger like a dog's fart, in some cases; and I don't mean all comprehensives, I've been to a couple of very good ones), how many pupils know who or what the cabinet are? What the latest humanitarian disaster is? How the economy will shape up when they have parents' with no reasonable source of income in their old age? :disturbd:

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

I think i know what you mean. I never understand why to we learn so much about all the good bits of british history but never learn about the middle east and Israel, we are far more likely to be affected from that than we are from how many wives Kenny Henry had. WW2 Teaching seems to be very pro british and seems never to mention the help from north america and rebels in europe (french resistance for example) tis a joke

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

They should make English Language, Maths and at least Double Award science compulsory along with a foreign language.

We do? Schools have changed a lot in three years then.


And a useless blooming plank of one, in my opinion of course.

Yes, we used to talk about all that stuff ourselves anyway, along with last night's football and other stuff, never thought owt of it really.

Woolsthorpe? All that and you can't spell his name... ;)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Totally agree - they're beginning to take the pee, now. :erm:

We do, not that very many of the teachers take it seriously, of course. It's a load of tripe. Not as bad as the 'bread and butter pudding' STD slides, of course (I'll say no more :shocked: ).

Well, yes, so do we. But a lot of people I've run into in 'other places' can barely string together a sentence, let alone make an ounce of sense!

I don't do history. ;) Grantham, of course (most boring town of the year for two years running a while back - let's hope none of my teachers read this :D ).

(I'll add that Maggie Thatcher went to the counterpart girls' school, but thankfully the girls there today are a bit more to look at. Actually, they were an eyeful earlier... :D )

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Chav by any chance?

Which school?

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Aye, they're abunant in Nottinghamshire - surely you know that?! :disturbd:

Newton went to (something along the lines of) King Charles I Grammar School for Boys', Grantham (the first? I can't remember!). Anyway, it was a bit tedious for writing on exam papers. :erm:

Anyway... :)

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

Sick of Deer Park not taking Copy/Paste in these boxes. Anyway:
1. Yes... as I said, just LOOK in Nottingham, Mansfield or Newark. Chav spotting is so easy, decent person spotting becomes the challenge.

2. Woo... you should add yourself to that Wiki. Presume you're sixth form now?

Re: Dumbing down science syllabus
 

1. It's almost scary, when you think about it.

2. Probably could! I just added a few paragraphs to it towards the end and edited "Now a school of over 800.." to "Now a school of over 900..". Now that's excitment!

(And, OT, I would've been sixth form - I shall explain via PM.. :) )