SQA Results&#x27; Day Discussion Thread - Tuesday 5 August 2014

Original post by Pennyarcade

If its so easy then why did you self teach it over your summer? Seems kinda pointless then imo

Because I plan to do more than Human Biology outwith school.

Reply 242

SerLorasTyrell

15

Original post by Ecasx

Explained in a grossly over-simplified manner. The new Higher delves into some pretty interesting mechanisms. There's actually a half-unit on the immune system alone. Course seems considerably larger based on course arrangements.

Edit: more terms too. For example, whereas you would refer to a compound merely as a '4C compound' in the old Higher, you would call it 'oxaloacetate' in the new Higher.

You sound like someone who bitterly regrets not taking it last year by trying to claim your higher will be worth more than ours.

4C compound or oxaloacetate, doesn't change what it does so it's hardly like it adds much to your understanding.

Having not done either of the previous highers claiming there are more terms is a big claim, there were tons of terms to learn in the old higher. It's the mechanisms and roles that are important, not the names we have given to compounds.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 243

Original post by SerLorasTyrell

You sound like someone who bitterly regrets not taking it last year by trying to claim your higher will be worth more than ours.

4C compound or oxaloacetate, doesn't change what it does so it's hardly like it adds much to your understanding.

Having not done either of the previous highers claiming there are more terms is a big claim, there were tons of terms to learn in the old higher. It's the mechanisms and roles that are important, not the names we have given to compounds.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You've deeply misread the situation mate.

1. Last year I was in 4th year
2. This year I'm doing the old Higher
3. I would prefer to do the new Higher from a learning point of view, e.g. if I was to take up medicine
4. Forgive me for mentioning terms. Having said that the 'mechanisms and roles' seem to be taught in more detail in the new Higher (e.g. differentiation of fibers into slow/fast, the respiratory substrates each uses etc.), as well as more fundamental issues being given more emphasis and some things being taught more accurately (the concept of somatic cells, germline cells in contrast to our knowledge merely of 'gamete mother cells', DNA as an anti-parallel structure, ligase, primers etc., the fact that one gene can code for many proteins, protein synthesis in a good bit more detail).

I think the new Higher course is better than the old Higher course, that's all.

Reply 244

SerLorasTyrell

15

Original post by Ecasx

You've deeply misread the situation mate.

1. Last year I was in 4th year
2. This year I'm doing the old Higher
3. I would prefer to do the new Higher from a learning point of view, e.g. if I was to take up medicine
4. Forgive me for mentioning terms. Having said that the 'mechanisms and roles' seem to be taught in more detail in the new Higher (e.g. differentiation of fibers into slow/fast, the respiratory substrates each uses etc.), as well as more fundamental issues being given more emphasis and some things being taught more accurately (the concept of somatic cells, germline cells in contrast to our knowledge merely of 'gamete mother cells', DNA as an anti-parallel structure, ligase, primers etc., the fact that one gene can code for many proteins, protein synthesis in a good bit more detail).

I think the new Higher course is better than the old Higher course, that's all.

Oops my bad

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 245

Original post by Ecasx

Throughout 1st to 4th year I've been pretty bored at school, leading to behaviour issues and such. So I decided to keep myself a bit busier. Apart from that I enjoy learning and knowing things, i.e. I genuinely want to learn about the human body rather than just achieving a qualification. Previously I had no biology knowledge whatsoever (I thought respiration was the process of breathing)

It is, in the physiological sense (well technically respiration = breathing + transport to tissues). Biochemical/cellular respiration is what you are thinking of I guess.

For example, my dad came in from the hospital the other day, saying he has a platelet problem. I asked how this problem arose, and he said his immune system is attacking his platelets. Straight away I know that:
1. platelets are the blood cells involved in clotting
2. he is describing an auto-immune disease
3. if he were to bleed it would be pretty difficult to stop

Researching online for a remedy to this, my dad found that 'steroid treatment' is often given. For most people, including my dad, hearing the word 'steroid' implies an anabolic steroid, with all of its disastrous side effects. However, I now know that steroids are simply a complex type of lipid - and some play crucial roles within the body, e.g. the sex hormones.

This is just a small illustration of what I mean. Although I appear to condemn the Higher course, it has taught me some pretty useful and interesting things :P

Biology =/= medicine though

And tbf, you could learn more about the situation you describe from watching House :tongue:

Reply 246

Original post by Asklepios

It is, in the physiological sense (well technically respiration = breathing + transport to tissues). Biochemical/cellular respiration is what you are thinking of I guess.

Biology =/= medicine though

And tbf, you could learn more about the situation you describe from watching House :tongue:

Still, it's useful! A higher course isn't going to make anyone an expert in a field but it's good to know.

Reply 247

Original post by Ecasx

Still, it's useful! A higher course isn't going to make anyone an expert in a field but it's good to know.

What I was trying to say is that for the New Higher, yes they've included more things that you've mentioned. But this also means that old things have had to be cut out. I think school level biology should still be very broad with strong emphasis on the foundations of biology rather than going into large amounts of detail on topics such as immunology.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 248

Hype en Ecosse

OP

20

Original post by Asklepios

What I was trying to say is that for the New Higher, yes they've included more things that you've mentioned. But this also means that old things have had to be cut out. I think school level biology should still be very broad with strong emphasis on the foundations of biology rather than going into large amounts of detail on topics such as immunology.

Posted from TSR Mobile

On top of this, more detail doesn't necessarily mean more useful. I don't know the components of the Kreb's cycle, nor any components of any other biochemical cycle. I don't think I'll ever need to know it, either, outside of extremely specific situations. There's no added value over teaching "oxaloacetate" over "4C compound". Feynman "name of the bird" and all that. I think the old biology courses do a very good job in their aim, with perhaps too little physiology for my liking! :smile:

Reply 249

Original post by Asklepios

What I was trying to say is that for the New Higher, yes they've included more things that you've mentioned. But this also means that old things have had to be cut out. I think school level biology should still be very broad with strong emphasis on the foundations of biology rather than going into large amounts of detail on topics such as immunology.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think the concept of stem cells, somatic cells and germline cells, as well as more emphasis on 'tissues, organs and systems' with an explanation of 'connective tissues' that make up the body is a pretty strong emphasis on the foundations of human biology (with cancer cells being a nice little extension of this). Again, I'd say delving into the two types of muscle fibers is pretty cool in contrast to the lame inclusion of muscle fibers in the old course, which they seem to have added as some sort of filler-in. I do like the old course. But I saw the new arrangement documents and that course does seem much improved. Teachers seem to be condemning the new qualifications, but that's mostly based on a lack of preparation on the SQA's part I assume. I think they're great updates.

Reply 250

greenladybird

8

While the new courses might be better for someone hoping to study medicine, there's still a range of university courses which benefit from the content of the old courses. :smile:

Reply 251

GoldenAge

7

Original post by SleepingStag

Of course! Doesn't help that I'm a natural procrastinator haha!

I'm taking maths, English, physics, computer science, geography and accounting. I'm wanting to study computing at uni :smile:

Oh yeah, I procrastinate like nobodies business too. :P

That's a pretty good mix of subjects. I took maths, English and physics last year as well as art and history. Physics and art were by far my favourites. I may have bombed maths though, like, so hard. My brother does computing too and he seems to be having a lot of fun. :smile:

Original post by Ecasx

Throughout 1st to 4th year I've been pretty bored at school, leading to behaviour issues and such. So I decided to keep myself a bit busier. Apart from that I enjoy learning and knowing things, i.e. I genuinely want to learn about the human body rather than just achieving a qualification. Previously I had no biology knowledge whatsoever (I thought respiration was the process of breathing) which really left me in the dark with anything biology-related, whereas now I have a good 'base' if you like.

For example, my dad came in from the hospital the other day, saying he has a platelet problem. I asked how this problem arose, and he said his immune system is attacking his platelets. Straight away I know that:
1. platelets are the blood cells involved in clotting
2. he is describing an auto-immune disease
3. if he were to bleed it would be pretty difficult to stop

Researching online for a remedy to this, my dad found that 'steroid treatment' is often given. For most people, including my dad, hearing the word 'steroid' implies an anabolic steroid, with all of its disastrous side effects. However, I now know that steroids are simply a complex type of lipid - and some play crucial roles within the body, e.g. the sex hormones.

This is just a small illustration of what I mean. Although I appear to condemn the Higher course, it has taught me some pretty useful and interesting things :P

Wow, okay. That's pretty cool if I say so myself. I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "so that's what it's like to actually know what you're learning." xD Like, I'm one of those nerds who can tell you anything you want to know about paintings or The Great Gatsby, but you've actually got down something that's useful. I wish I had drive like you :redface:

:P

Reply 252

Adykonvict1

Original post by ElectricScalpel

Yeah, I sat it :smile:

I did:

•

War and Peace

•

Islam

•

Belief in Science

I'm hoping for an A - apparently the pass mark is meant to be lowered slightly this year :h:

did you hear that from a credible source? Secondly I thought the paper was good , just the last question in section one. The bit were it said evaluate these religous views. What did you do for that?

Reply 253

Original post by Ecasx

I think the concept of stem cells, somatic cells and germline cells, as well as more emphasis on 'tissues, organs and systems' with an explanation of 'connective tissues' that make up the body is a pretty strong emphasis on the foundations of human biology (with cancer cells being a nice little extension of this). Again, I'd say delving into the two types of muscle fibers is pretty cool in contrast to the lame inclusion of muscle fibers in the old course, which they seem to have added as some sort of filler-in. I do like the old course. But I saw the new arrangement documents and that course does seem much improved. Teachers seem to be condemning the new qualifications, but that's mostly based on a lack of preparation on the SQA's part I assume. I think they're great updates.

Oh human biology, woops, I thought you meant they'd put a whole half unit of immunology in regular biology lol. I guess that's all reasonably fair then. It's just that you made it sound like a medicine precursor course :tongue:

Original post by Hype en Ecosse

with perhaps too little physiology for my liking! :smile:

Yeah there should be more physiology. In fact the higher biology course should be unit 1 - physiology, unit 2 - anatomy, unit 3 - biochemistry. And while they're at it, may as well try and fit in some pathology and pharmacology too :rolleyes:

Spoiler

On a serious note, I think there is more physiology in the A-level course as all the English kids come knowing all about the neurotransmission stuff, for example. Not sure whether or not such specific things should be taught at school. Like the physiology unit in AH biology, it was interesting but it was only really a few select topics so it wasn't a proper grounding in physiology.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 254

Original post by Asklepios

Oh human biology, woops, I thought you meant they'd put a whole half unit of immunology in regular biology lol. I guess that's all reasonably fair then. It's just that you made it sound like a medicine precursor course :tongue:

Isn't Human Biology logically much more suited as a precursor to Medicine compared to regular Biology?

Reply 255