Turn on thread page Beta

"soft" subjects conning poor students watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Hmm. Perhaps more should be done to connect our amazement at our technology with the work of the engineers. I find it shocking that people think engineering is some sort of blue collar work >_<
    My experience of the core sciences at GCSE level and earlier was, quite frankly, rubbish.
    A lot could've been done to connect science with careers, with developments and with interests, but time was spent doing equations that weren't given any practical link, and the measurement of useless factors.
    Were a science lesson to involve the study and repair of a car/car part, the building of a PC or the discussion and planning of an eco-friendly building, it could be so much more.
    I studied TV Production at university. A BSc. There were some aspects of physics involved in my study. It wasn't in-depth, maybe slightly more so than GCSE-level, but not to A-Level standard, but it was enjoyable because it was relevant - and I say this as someone who hated physics at GCSE. Subjects can be made interesting if they're given reason - schools don't do this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    I'll be honest, I don't think poetry will help feed the poor.
    That was pure coincidence/my pure genius.

    However are you now saying Byron wasn't 'widely thought of as worth the effort, highly regarded and very important to society and humanity in general'?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    My experience of the core sciences at GCSE level and earlier was, quite frankly, rubbish.
    A lot could've been done to connect science with careers, with developments and with interests, but time was spent doing equations that weren't given any practical link, and the measurement of useless factors.
    Were a science lesson to involve the study and repair of a car/car part, the building of a PC or the discussion and planning of an eco-friendly building, it could be so much more.
    I studied TV Production at university. A BSc. There were some aspects of physics involved in my study. It wasn't in-depth, maybe slightly more so than GCSE-level, but not to A-Level standard, but it was enjoyable because it was relevant - and I say this as someone who hated physics at GCSE. Subjects can be made interesting if they're given reason - schools don't do this.
    Thing is, one of the reasons why the sciences are considered so useful is because they give so many transferrable skills.

    Perhaps the scientific communicators should try and head closer to the public conscience to make people interested.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    That was pure coincidence/my pure genius.

    However are you now saying Byron wasn't 'widely thought of as worth the effort, highly regarded and very important to society and humanity in general'?
    As much as Fleming, Newton and the engineers working to get Africa into a working and vibrant collection of countries? No.

    Was he culturally important? Yes, sure.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    My experience of the core sciences at GCSE level and earlier was, quite frankly, rubbish.
    A lot could've been done to connect science with careers, with developments and with interests, but time was spent doing equations that weren't given any practical link, and the measurement of useless factors.
    Were a science lesson to involve the study and repair of a car/car part, the building of a PC or the discussion and planning of an eco-friendly building, it could be so much more.
    I studied TV Production at university. A BSc. There were some aspects of physics involved in my study. It wasn't in-depth, maybe slightly more so than GCSE-level, but not to A-Level standard, but it was enjoyable because it was relevant - and I say this as someone who hated physics at GCSE. Subjects can be made interesting if they're given reason - schools don't do this.
    The problem is that there is so much to cover that you can't simply do a 'topic' style study on everything without missing stuff. Also, a lot of things that we use in our daily lives actually rely on very complicated physics, so to derive genuine physics educational value from such examples then basic knowledge has to be covered first otherwise you get the abortive attempts at doing this at GCSE in the past where next to no science is actually invovled. If we actually spent time teaching kids more science and maths earlier rather than focussing on just arithmetic (there is no good reason why the higher achievers in primary schools should not be started off on algebra in Year 5 rather than spending inordinate amounts of time learning overly-complicated methods to solve problems without it) then we'd have more time to make things relevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    My experience of the core sciences at GCSE level and earlier was, quite frankly, rubbish.
    A lot could've been done to connect science with careers, with developments and with interests, but time was spent doing equations that weren't given any practical link, and the measurement of useless factors.
    Were a science lesson to involve the study and repair of a car/car part, the building of a PC or the discussion and planning of an eco-friendly building, it could be so much more.
    I studied TV Production at university. A BSc. There were some aspects of physics involved in my study. It wasn't in-depth, maybe slightly more so than GCSE-level, but not to A-Level standard, but it was enjoyable because it was relevant - and I say this as someone who hated physics at GCSE. Subjects can be made interesting if they're given reason - schools don't do this.
    Science is one of those needs rather than wants although some people seem to enjoy it.

    Its a bit like keeping fit or dieting, its good for you but you don't necessarily like it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Science is one of those needs rather than wants although some people seem to enjoy it.

    Its a bit like keeping fit or dieting, its good for you but you don't necessarily like it.
    Yes, but this is why it's so under-subscribed at degree level.

    You'd have to be pretty silly to be the one that paid thousands of pounds a year to study something they didn't like, or extremely motivated by money.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    My experience of the core sciences at GCSE level and earlier was, quite frankly, rubbish.
    A lot could've been done to connect science with careers, with developments and with interests, but time was spent doing equations that weren't given any practical link, and the measurement of useless factors.
    None of which is useless at all to anyone who intends to actually study said sciences.

    Were a science lesson to involve the study and repair of a car/car part,
    Repairing a car is not 'science'. If you want to learn how to repair cars, do it in your own time, or become a car mechanic.

    the building of a PC
    That's not science either. If you want to know how to build a PC then read up online on how to slot the parts together. If you want to know how to build a PC from scratch, get a degree in electronics and electrical engineering, or computer engineering, or something along that lines. It's a hugely complex task which cannot be taught at gcse level.

    or the discussion and planning of an eco-friendly building,
    I'd love to see how much they'd have to butcher it to effectively teach it at gcse level... :rolleyes:

    I studied TV Production at university. A BSc. There were some aspects of physics involved in my study. It wasn't in-depth, maybe slightly more so than GCSE-level, but not to A-Level standard, but it was enjoyable because it was relevant - and I say this as someone who hated physics at GCSE. Subjects can be made interesting if they're given reason - schools don't do this.
    The reason for studying sciences at GCSE is to give people a foundation for studying them at higher levels. You need this foundation to study them at higher levels. It's not about ****ing teaching you how to fix your car or design an eco-friendly building! You'd really need to have studied a proper science at higher than gcse level to understand this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    The problem is that there is so much to cover that you can't simply do a 'topic' style study on everything without missing stuff. Also, a lot of things that we use in our daily lives actually rely on very complicated physics, so to derive genuine physics educational value from such examples then basic knowledge has to be covered first otherwise you get the abortive attempts at doing this at GCSE in the past where next to no science is actually invovled. If we actually spent time teaching kids more science and maths earlier rather than focussing on just arithmetic (there is no good reason why the higher achievers in primary schools should not be started off on algebra in Year 5 rather than spending inordinate amounts of time learning overly-complicated methods to solve problems without it) then we'd have more time to make things relevant.
    Certainly, I agree with this.

    I'm definitely not saying for a second that we shouldn't teach science in great academic depth (at younger ages, as you suggest), but it'd be better in my opinion if it were made 'real' in the classroom or beyond. Even if that were just for ten minutes at the start of each lesson, explaining a use for what will be learned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    Yes, but this is why it's so under-subscribed at degree level.

    You'd have to be pretty silly to be the one that paid thouands of pounds a year to study something they didn't like, or extremely motivated by money.
    Or have a messianic complex
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    I'm definitely not saying for a second that we shouldn't teach science in great academic depth (at younger ages, as you suggest), but it'd be better in my opinion if it were made 'real' in the classroom or beyond. Even if that were just for ten minutes at the start of each lesson, explaining a use for what will be learned.
    As long as we accept that some things need to be know to help us understand generally first before we can explore any particular application. Some things are just useful to help science progress rather than having a technological spin-off - we shouldn't let that discourage us from teaching these things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    As long as we accept that some things need to be know to help us understand generally first before we can explore any particular application. Some things are just useful to help science progress rather than having a technological spin-off - we shouldn't let that discourage us from teaching these things.
    I agree. :yep:

    Perhaps I worded it wrongly originally, as people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    Yes, but this is why it's so under-subscribed at degree level.

    You'd have to be pretty silly to be the one that paid thouands of pounds a year to study something they didn't like, or extremely motivated by money.
    To be honest university entrance is improving now in pure science so we seem to have got over the worst. Though it seems there is a fundamental difference between how we teach here in the UK and how it is done in Europe as more students (and more importantly more women) study science in Europe.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    Certainly, I agree with this.

    I'm definitely not saying for a second that we shouldn't teach science in great academic depth (at younger ages, as you suggest), but it'd be better in my opinion if it were made 'real' in the classroom or beyond. Even if that were just for ten minutes at the start of each lesson, explaining a use for what will be learned.
    The very basics you learn at GCSE level in itself, at least when it comes to physics and maths, doesn't have much, if any, practical application beyond being the building blocks to to more advanced stuff, in which case it is often used in many different applications.

    You certainly won't be learning how to design computer parts or building at GCSE physics.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 31, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

1,418

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.