Dumbing down science syllabus

[marky]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Incog gets out her deckchair and the iced tea.


I want a deckchair smiley...

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

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...

[jrhnewark]

Originally Posted by homealone

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

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.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

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.

Well, they could use some nutrition tips then

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

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.

- 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

[Ramrod]

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

[jrhnewark]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Well, they could use some nutrition tips then

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

[nffc]

Strange kid.

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

Yes that was interesting- more so after GCSE!

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?

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.

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

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by Chimaera

Quiz nights?

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

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

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

"Master the periodic table"..?

What's there to master at GCSE?

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.

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

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!

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?

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

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.

Just another bloody politician...!

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.

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

[marky]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Graham

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!

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.

[jrhnewark]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

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

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!

Just another bloody politician...!

Again, true...

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.. ). 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?