Science and Math Enrollments Reach New High In UK 91
ianare writes "There has been a continued increase in the number of students taking A-level science and maths subjects. Physics has been especially popular. A growing fascination with science and teacher support schemes seem to be improving the teaching of maths and physics in UK state schools. From the article: 'There is evidence that two teacher support schemes funded by the Department for Education and run by the Institute of Physics and Mathematics in Education and Industry are beginning to make a big difference.
The IOP runs a network in England designed to help science teachers teach physics, called the Stimulating Physics Network. The MEI has a similar scheme called the Further Mathematics Support Programme. There is compelling evidence that much of the rise in the numbers of A-level students comes from schools participating in the scheme.'"
This is good. (Score:4, Interesting)
I regret not doing more mathematics the first time round at A level, but there are problems to be addressed. I did turn my degree ("major", as Americans seem to call it) toward mathematics, and for preparatory work ended up doing another math A-level via private study, for which I received the top % in the country for that exam board. But all I really did was cram the study books published by the same company which produced the exams.
At a ceremony thing, following a long discussion with some of the staff at the board, I was immediately offered a trial position. I stupidly didn't take it. Well, I know at the time I was recovering from an illness which had just appeared and wasn't really thinking straight about what I could do long term. But I would like to have played at least some part in turning it more from a "learn for the test" thing into a "learn problem-solving" thing.
Re:Simpler explanation (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether the conventional wisdom will actually prove correct for students starting undergraduate degrees in September this year, I don't know. I suspect a maths degree will always make you more employable than a media studies one, but there's no reason to suspect that any portion of the graduate jobs market is immune to over-saturation.
I think the falacy in the conventional wisdom is that somehow a university education is sufficient to prepare an arbitrary student for a graduate-level job at the end. In my opinion, some people just have an affinity towards math and science (similar to affinity that some folks have to the arts, or others have for business) that makes it an intangible element that makes all the difference that no university education can create.
Somehow I doubt a large increase in enrollment is reflective of an equivalently large number of untapped potential in the student population, but a foreshadowing of a bunch of potential drop-outs and/or mediocre graduates that will be released into the job market in a few years. Whether or not they can be absorbed depends if the economy is booming or not. I hope these prospective math and science students will be doing some serious self instrospection about what they are getting themselves into.
I have always felt that one should take inventory of your skills and select an appropriate course of study with a high potential of success (rather than chase the money and play the generic odds)... That doesn't mean follow your heart (as some would advocate), but follow your head, and not the whims of tradewinds...
Re:Simpler explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in London, so I know loads of people who've relocated -- many semi/unskilled young people from Southern or Eastern Europe, but also plenty of skilled workers from Northern and Western Europe, and transient workers from Australia, NZ, SA etc. Half the people I meet aren't British. Some Swedish friends told me last night that London is the fourth-largest city by Swedish population.
I haven't checked any statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if British people are some of the least mobile in the EU.
(FWIW, my sister/friends etc have probably been on benefits for less than six months between them. They can get unskilled temporary jobs in offices easily enough (and do so).)
The government should, as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits, require people located in areas of high unemployment to relocate if there are appropriate jobs elsewhere.
Agreed. Wasn't the whole point of Jobseeker's allowance to fund things like train travel to job interviews? (I could be wrong, I never needed to sign on.)
Re:Trendy (Score:2, Interesting)
Jobs for those with degrees, masters or PHD in physics.??
Everything.
From banking, construction, engineering, ICT, essentially all technology, anything to do with numbers or handling data, anything to do with statistics, anything to do with problem solving. Every single field I've drifted into have found my skills invaluable.
Don't think Fermi could have been useful other than a physicist? Newton seemed to earn money doing numerous other jobs, as have many other physicists.
I don't know what sort of physicists you guys know, but every single one graduate of my physics course (which is now shut down) have been in demand. In fact I've employed 5 of the 20 or so graduates that the program produced (over 10 years before being shut down).
PhD's tend to be less flexible being more specialised, but I would imagine would still be useful. Anything in Chemistry or Biology has at its core physics. Any device or technology in these fields also have at its core, physics. Hence why so many many physicists have won awards including nobel prizes in chemistry and biology in almost every major development (radioactivity, DNA, protons etc).
PHD is physics isn't the point. If Chemists and Biologists had a better understanding of physics then they would be better chemists and biologists and not just robots that put things into black boxes and hope they get told an answer from a machine they don't understand how it works. (NMR, XRD, SEM, etc etc).
Imagine engineers that had a solid understanding of material science. Engineers that understand how a PNP/NPN transistor, or a superconductor works, and not just simply apply and answer textbook questions because they are flat out just getting through the basics at uni. Imagine a population that understands the basics of the universe and a real science. Why the LHC is important, where energy comes from.
Rutherford said it best. Science is physics, everything else is stamp collecting. Mighty words for someone who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry...