New UK Initiative - Make Science Easier 423
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."
The Bit About... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The grades aren't important, the learning is.
You want to make math and sciences easier, train your teachers to do a better job.
A simple rant. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Personally my kids will go to private school
Careful there. Don't take it for granted that the education at a private school is better. I went to one and it was very hit and miss. Some great teachers, and some terrible teachers. The real eye-opener was hearing that we were the only ones who went there for a better education. Everyone else was there to make connections with rich, powerful, and important people. Part of that was making yourself look like you were worth knowing. Tense atmosphere there. Succeed or die. Some went with the 2nd op
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to make math and sciences easier, train your teachers to do a better job.
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that an often overlooked point with regard to getting better teachers is that there is a desperate shortage of decently mathematically literate teachers in the early (elementary/primary/whatever you call it) levels of schooling. The problem is, with mathematics being as layered a subject as it is, each year building upon the work of the last, once a student is a little behind catching up can be well nigh impossible: they find themselves chasing a rainbow that
behold: "The Campaign for Real Education" (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought that the point of examinations was to allow society to differentiate the more clever people from the less clever people. If everyone get's straight A's how do you know who's cleve
Re: (Score:2)
If the exam boards reckon that it is necessary to have more multiple choice questions because there aren't enough people interested in science, I think it's reasonable to infer from that that the standard of teaching isn't actually that great.
Wrong Conclusion (Score:2)
Let me illustrate. If you have an algebraic equation A + B where a = 2 and B = 3 then the answer is?
Sorry.... (Score:2)
Everest or a word-search, take your pick! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
No calculus? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While doing simple calculus is pretty easy, if it was taught at GCSE it would have to be taught as formulae (eg. d/dx
Re: (Score:2)
having not taught calculus in GCSE means they can't use it in any A levels except A level maths because you may be doing them without doing A level maths and even if you do A level maths you don't do any calculus beyond the trivial polynomial stuff until the second year.
I still don't fully grasp why the different differntiation/integration formula work (I did A level further maths but while doing it realised that maths wasn't really my thing and went to do an electronic systems engineering degree) but I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I did calculus at 'O' grade in Scotland. Oh come on, it isn't even that hard.
I took some of my year 9 (13 year olds) set through some basic calculus in the spring term of this year, *because they asked*. It is indeed not that hard, and I find that they really like stuff when you say, "This isn't on the syllabus but..." Alas, there's just far too little time available to do that. The syllabus is cram full with lots of irrelevant crap which they'll never use again.
On another similar occasion we did solving simple cubic equations. We'd done quadratics and they were still intereste
Well... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way to work through it from first principles - there is no understanding and a vague promise it would come some day.
This lack of understanding, and the reduction of subjects to memorisation of a long list of facts, is a deep problem that is permeating all the sciences. Personally I feel that it is worst in mathematics, where the confusion between doing mathematics and facts about mathematics [stuff.gen.nz] extends well beyond school curricula and out into the mainstream perception of the subject.
Learning a lot of facts will help a student pass exams, and it can aid them in appearing to know something about a subject, but it leaves t
Re: (Score:3)
It's "-esque" instead of "esc," "brass tacks" instead of "brass tax," and "into" instead of "in to" (in the last sentence). I'm sorry to have to correct you, but it pained me to read those in an otherwise-intelligent post.
Re:Everest or a word-search, take your pick! (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with you on this particular point. Yes it is true that you don't want to water things down. But if you are serious about advocating these particular examples, I believe that you are wrong. I know this because, A. I have solved the hydrogen atom starting from the Schrodinger equation, and B. because I have taught high school science in the US, specifically physics, to 15 and 16 year old children of all kinds of ability levels.
The fact of the matter is that while that may have been OK for you to have studied at the age, it most certainly is NOT for the overwhelming majority of students, by which I mean 99.9%. That is a literal number, not figurative. I myself would have been unable to understand the quantum mechanical derivation of the Bohr model of the atom at the age of 16, even if someone had carefully explained it to me. There is just no way to do that and impart deep understanding of both the process and the end result. You are better off just presenting the solution, because that at least is something that students can understand. 16 year olds (again, 99.9% of them) are not going to understand calculus (did I mention it is multivariable vector calculus in 3 dimensions?), let alone partial differential equations (e.g. Schrodinger) and spherical harmonics, all of which are needed to understand the "walkthrough".
Basically what I am saying is that it is unrealistic to expect even a minority of students to understand such high level concepts that they are not taught in the United States until the sophomore and junior years of university, and even then only to a select number of students (in physics, electrical engineering, and maybe a few others). That is a good way to turn students off to science- making the barrier unnecessarily high. Sometimes, it is OK to gloss over the math, because there is nothing to be gained there. Most students, even the bright ones, are not going to be come physicists, so why subject them to something that is so specific?
Doing a derivation on something like circular motion is much more appropriate. Why? Because it is something that students can relate to (they have all experienced circular motion, centripetal force etc.), unlike quantum mechanics which is inherently non-intuitive, and the math is orders of magnitude simpler (algebra vs spherical harmonics). On that point I am in agreement. But you must be careful about how you phrase your argument and present your viewpoint because the minute you start spouting off about showing students how to derive the Bohr model of the atom from the Schrodinger equation, you are going to turn people because they don't even know what the Schrodinger equation is. We don't want to dumb down science, but at the same time it needs to be accessible to students beyond the future Stephen Hawkings of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as a "UK" exam. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
[...] 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).
I guess you're not from England?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
they've exported their politicians to England to fuck up the English system
Thank you for proving my point: there is no English parliamentary system, if you want one, go get one, but complaining about Scots in the UK parliament just demonstrates how distorted the use of the word "English" often is
Re: (Score:2)
I heard this before. Talk of a referendum in Scotland - but hang on a minute, why does Scotland get to vote and the rest of the Union doesn't? That's a bit like asking prisoners to vote on whether or not they'd like to be let out early?
If there's a referendum on whether or not Scotland should be independent, then all the affected parties, ie Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland should vote on it, as it affects us all!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am proud to be a graduate of the Scottish education system [wikipedia.org] - a system that had free education for child
Re: (Score:2)
I guess ultimately, it would be cheaper for the rest of the Union as we'd not have to pay them directly, and they can take a slice out of our existing EU contribution.
They lie - is this surprising ? (Score:2)
Don't forget, if students fail, it's the school's fault
Re: (Score:2)
Labour like inflation. It fools the plebs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we may be able to shorten that somewhat ...
Labour fools the plebs
Anyone want a few more spin doctors on the payroll?
i was hoping (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:i was hoping (Score:4, Informative)
My parents got 'homeschooling fever' when I hit high school, my siblings are all a lot younger. I did it through high school, they did it anywhere from first grade all the way through to the end of high school. It works if everyone is on board. At the start, I was not, but that's a long story. As a high schooler I taught myself more than my mom taught me. Which is good, you comprehend a lot more that way.
So long and short: it works, but make sure you are all on the same page and on board with the idea. It ain't cheap. The best math is probably Saxon Math. A lot of home schoolers go with the Abeka system of educational materials but there are others like Bob Jones and such. You may find yourself off better keeping her in school and tutoring her on the side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes - as much as you may care for youe sister, it's not your decision to make.
The irony being (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, science is hard. It kicked my ass to get through engineering school. Physics, Maths, and Chemistry are what they are. You can't make them easier. If you want to be competent,
US Scientific Pay (Score:2)
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 c
Euclid said it best... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Science doesn't need to be fun. (Score:2)
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
It needs to be relevant.
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.
Well said (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Course work is a horrible way of awarding grades, to start with I didn't really have that much spare time after school to be investigating the location of shoe shops in Redditch even if I hadn't have found the
Re:Euclid said it best... (Score:4, Insightful)
Multiple choice tests are the worst (Score:2)
Thank you Professor Dietz, wherever you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps multiple choice can be effective, but IME it usually isn't.
I'm reminded of a conversation with a friend a couple of years younger than me, back when we were learning to drive. When I took the test, it was all done in one practical session, and when you got back to the test centre at the end, the examiner would ask some questions to check the candidate's theoretical knowledge was OK. Shortly afterwards, they started running a separate theory exam, taken first, which is basically a multiple choice t
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I really hated in school was essay questions where the teacher still had this strict
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the few studies that have looked at standardized tests in the US have found that they absolutely, 100% do NOT do these things, and I'm sure the UK isn't much better, especially if they make them easier. Heck, in the US it's rare to find standardized tests that actually test for the same things that are listed in the state standards. The
New exam: (Score:5, Funny)
a. Hat?
b. Cat?
c. Kat?
Re:New exam: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Source: (dictionary.com)
Although I have only ever seen it spelled as Qat in the UK (Handy for scrabble if you have a Q but no U).
Re:New exam: (Score:5, Funny)
food for thought. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or it could be they're being taught better generally. But actually there's another possibility - the rates are only an average for all GCSEs, and one possibility is that people are switching to easier subjects. So it's not that any given ex
Re: (Score:2)
23 is logically D not B
27 is D not C
30 none of the answers make sense.
34 (6370/10) * 2 is not 56000s - but who knows, maybe I am wrong with my understanding of this question.
Re: (Score:2)
From the exam...
5. Our moon seems to 'disappear' during an ecclipse. Some people say that this is because an old lady covers the Moon with her cloak. She does this so that thieves cannot steal the shiny coins on the surface. Which of these would help scientists to prove or disprove this idea?
A. Collect evidence from people who believe the lady sees the thieves
B. Shout to the lady that the thieves are coming
C. Send a probe to the Moon to search for coins
D. Look for fingerprints
What...the...fuck?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently this is quite normal that a question like this is included in GCSE exams. Look at the Campaign for Real Education website as they have a few examples. http://www.cre.org.uk/ [cre.org.uk].
Their comparison of maths exams though the ages is quite illumination. Apparently a lot of current A level questions uses to be O level questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a few comments.
Q1. Can't be C and can't be D - these aren't stable because they don't orbit the primary. also there is no way to distinguish between C and D if we assume there is a planet at the centre of the circle. Can be A or B. Planets tend to have circular orbits but there's no theoretical reason why they can't have a highly eliptical orbit and moons orbit so close to the primary that the "wobble" wont be visible
Testing reasoning (not memory) w/ multiple choice (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
They've been dumbing down exams in England for yea (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:They've been dumbing down exams in England for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good students losing out (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it a symptom of the failure of education that you don't see the logical inconsistency between the two statements? If you want really good students to shine more, then handing out a simple pass/fail grade is precisely the way not to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, not for the politicians themselves though, just all us lucky voters!
Science education (and education in general)... (Score:2)
The average IQ is for many populations is roughly ~100, not exactly stellar. The truth is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
100 is average IQ by design. Scores are normalized so that 100 is always average.
There is more to education than rote learning and memorization. You learn how to learn, how to problem solve, how to think critically, how to express ideas better, how to write better, etc...
It also does expand your mind. You might not remember all the facts you learned in 7th grade biology, but conceptually you understand it better and will be better able to process
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's the solution? We don't teach anything beyond reading, write, and arithmetic? Because, really that's all the education that you can be pretty much guaranteed everyone will use. There are two pr
Test isn't just easy: it's wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
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....
Re:Test isn't just easy: it's wrong (Score:4, Informative)
The next question is worse, question 20:
Digital technologies, such as CD and DVD players, have increased
A) the speed at which sound travels
B) the quality of sound you can hear
C) the range of frequencies you can hear
D) the loudness of sound which can be produced
Apparently the answer is B, but C and D are also correct (at least, compared to vinyl, which is what CDs replaced).
Look at 23!
Assume the orbits of Pluto and Earth are circular. Earth is 150 million km from the sun. Pluto is 5913 million km from the sun. What is the smallest distance between Pluto and Earth in million km?
A) 5913 + 150
B) 5913 - 150
C) 5913 x 150
D) 5913 / 150
Apparently they don't think 16 year olds can count any more!
The rest of the paper (the higher tier bit) isn't so bad. It's a shame it's still multiple choice though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Digital technologies, such as CD and DVD players, have increased
A) the speed at which sound travels
B) the quality of sound you can hear
C) the range of frequencies you can hear
D) the loudness of sound which can be produced
Apparently the answer is B, but C and D are also correct (at least, compared to vinyl, which is what CDs replaced).
How is C correct? CDs don't make the ear any more responsive to frequencies. And because of the Nyquist limit CDs can only produce up to 22.05kHz frequencies, a limitation viny
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are advantages offcourse, no idea why they didn't mention one of them. For example:
digital sound can be transported, s
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is why I hate multiple choice, it's
E is, indeed, correct
Re: (Score:2)
The choices were always carefully chosen to try to trip you up: common mistakes in the calculation would give you an answer that was one of the options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make it *harder*, to make it more popular (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Need general and specialised exams (Score:2)
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
Time to take the politicians out of education... (Score:2)
The International Baccalaureate.
http://www.ibo.org/ [ibo.org]
Tiered exams (Score:2)
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 n
You can dumb down the exams (Score:2)
Science paper or papers-please paper? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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".
Oh Good. (Score:2)
-Grey
Re: (Score:2)
I read your original complaint about the state of physics exams. It disturbs me that there seems to be so much political interference in the syllabus - really starting to feel quite 1984.
So this classic research is now proven wrong? (Score:2)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38575 [theonion.com]
Question 30 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Question 34 (Score:2)
We did this in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Prepare for a tragedy (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read 3 books a week are they all called "how not to spell"?
Back on topic. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when a student goes up against other students for a job in a scientific field, they're not competing with students from a less demanding field. I couldn't care less if everybody that went into Communications got an "A" since I'm not competing with them. As the scientific tests get made easier, it will be more difficult for future employers to use their grades as some indicator of where t