Comments on: How much science do they teach in schools?

By: Has technology rendered the need for government obsolete?

Has technology rendered the need for government obsolete? — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:45:14 +0000

[...] theory in at least four subjects at the same time – Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Geography. How much science do they teach in schools? | John Redwood MP How much macro-economic theory were you taught at school? I was taught absolutely zero! [...]

By: Stuart Fairney

Stuart Fairney — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:14:17 +0000

I'm not sure he would get an English GCSE however, because it is of course Spartacus not Sparticus. Then again with grade inflation…

By: Donitz

Donitz — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:20:09 +0000

Yep, although I say it myself it was amazing for, I am Sparticus, I mean that friend.

I read a book called German in 3 months supplied with tape. I spoke to the locals when I had the chance.

I did not take any languages at O level back in 86.

There is no escapping the fact that the GCSE was a doddle!!!

I also think that the year I took it, Summer 1998, there was still no such thing as an A* at GCSE as rampant grade inflation was still not in full force.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:53:05 +0000

A further thought:

Scientific thought was the fruit of the Enlightenment of the 18th century and that is a one off: you cannot demystify religious superstition twice!
Today, thanks to Einstein, science itself seems to becoming a lot more mystical and indeed so do a lot of people too. Bending light, black holes, string theory, several new dimensions! Whatever next! Socially, hippies led to New Age and now we have materialism as our creed. Religion (go to any Church/Mosque and look in UK at the moment) seems to be on its last legs.
Could that be why science has died out too? It has had its day. James Watt, George Stephenson, self improving amateurs would not, I think, have survived the Comprehensive system. In the Private sector,, of course, they would have been either Media People, Celebs or Lawyers!

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:18:19 +0000

Yes, I have You are entirely correct though, in many comps, let alone failing ones, it would be a nightmare.

By: Michael Martin-Smith

Michael Martin-Smith — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:53:04 +0000

It is well known that the biggest growth in science education in the USA took place during and soon after Project Apollo; as a result of which most US wealth not built on a debt bubble has been generated by science based industry.

Japan, China and India recognise the importance of science in the 21st century and are now engaged in a new version of the Apollo space race- with permanent exploration, development and, in time, settlement , of the New Frontier.

We have neglected these developments in favour of funny money and trashy celebrity. Until we value science, exploration and build a meaningful human space programme of our own, we will decline further, and, according to the principles of Darwin, will deserve to do so!

Historians will not wonder how we could afford it, but rather how on Earth we ever thought we could afford NOT to .

Humankind will , in coming generations, create a cosmic Diaspora or become extinct. Our grandchildren and their descendants deserve a future.

By: adam

adam — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:10:40 +0000

Just reading the bbc report, one of the facts is that 94% of students earned a C grade up from 91%.

I think i have found the source of the manipulation.

Surely the purpose of grades is to provide a comparison with other students.

At most only 50% should recieve C or above, ideally more like 30% in my opinion.

There is no purpose to grading if the boundries are not distributed properly.

Technically then it is correct to say exam results are improving, which people equate with improving standards, but under New Labour making that small leap would be foolish.

By: HJ

HJ — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:51:16 +0000

a-tracy,

In most state schools now, you can only take the single or double science awards – you can't do the three sciences separately.

This was only of the principal reasons why I didn't send my daughter to one of the comprehensives in John Redwood's constituency and instead pay for her to go to an independent school (something I really can't afford). It's a disgrace that they take my taxes and can't provide a decent scientific education.

By: DBC Reed

DBC Reed — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:59:48 +0000

You can get quite a long way thinking the Sun goes round the Earth,whilst still practising logical scientific deduction.Take Sherlock Holmes for instance as complained about bitterly by Watson in "A Study in Scarlet".
" His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge…My surprise reached a climax,however when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System.That any civilised human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it."

By: a-tracy

a-tracy — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:53:46 +0000

I agree that children should be able to study a GCSE in Physics, or Chemistry or Biology or two of them or indeed all three separately if talented in science, however, this isn't right for all children and I don't agree that they should all have to study all three sciences separately for GCSE when they only have nine subjects and 25 hours at school per week.

Some may only want to take Biology at GCSE and use their extra lesson for other subjects that suit their plans for the future. Some could choose Physics and Chemistry and drop Biology, it is a shame this can't be accommodated and they have to take the double award.

HJ my son was very disappointed that the Physics A level didn't involve more maths too.