Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no, just no.

    the amount that gcses are getting dumbed down is ridiculous, most countries run a baccalaureate system where you have to study a wide range of subjects, and you probably won't enjoy half of them, but people i've met in foreign countries just get to it without complaining

    what is this attitude that just because i'm not good at a certain subject, the exam board should dumb it down for me just so i can flaunt a superior set of grades

    arts students who don't do well at science and will never need it, should there be a gcse science for humanitarians/ artists? on what type of bleach would best get the solution would best get the stain out of their carpet or what type of bleach is best to clean your toilet? what about a gcse language for people who aren't good at languages

    it's ridiculous and this thread makes me feel the need to drop iq points

    half the stuff you learn in high school you'll never need again or will apply into the real world, you do them so you have a basic understanding and appreciating of all of this
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    grade B in english GCSE is stupidly easy to achieve, if one were to apply them self to the same extent they did with their science GCSES it would not be a problem
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Table dust)
    grade B in english GCSE is stupidly easy to achieve, if one were to apply them self to the same extent they did with their science GCSES it would not be a problem
    No I went in after school for lessons, barely got A D

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.R)
    I really struggled with GCSE English at school, yet my physics teacher consistently praised me for my clear and concise use of English when conveying my scientific ideas in exams. I volunteered and wrote an article for a youth magazine once; they said it was really good and were amazed that I knew how to use a semicolon. At university I got top marks for my scientific essays.

    For these reasons I propose that GCSE English Language be split into two streams; A GCSE for the scientifically minded and a GCSE for those interested in Humanities. Each GCSE would be tailored the use of English in Science or Humanities. I think it's a little unfair that some universities such as Imperial bar students with lest than a B even if they have an A* in physics which proves that they are more than capable of using English in a scientific context. Furthermore I believe that the current English qualification does not give you the proper skills to succeed when using English in a scientific context.

    PS: This is TSR so I know that someone is going to point out a grammatical mistake just because I claimed to have good English. I have not proof read this so go be pedantic elsewhere
    I don't think that would be a good idea, maybe a 'Use of English in the Sciences' certificate alongside your GCSEs or something like that. Otherwise what's to stop us also having 'Maths for Artists' haha.

    No in all seriousness, I can see your point but I think additional certification, not separate streaming would be the best option. I think good scientists need to have excellent verbal and written communication skills, something I believe the GCSE syllabus covers well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    No I went in after school for lessons, barely got A D

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't think it's fair to say that it is ridiculously easy to achieve, some intelligent people who excel in other areas work très hard to get a grade B in English.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakaroo94)
    I don't think that would be a good idea, maybe a 'Use of English in the Sciences' certificate alongside your GCSEs or something like that. Otherwise what's to stop us also having 'Maths for Artists' haha.

    No in all seriousness, I can see your point but I think additional certification, not separate streaming would be the best option. I think good scientists need to have excellent verbal and written communication skills, something I believe the GCSE syllabus covers well.
    The thing is it does but it tests it in a way that is not helpful to the logically minded which is why I suggested a completely different stream. But your idea is good too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.R)
    The thing is it does but it tests it in a way that is not helpful to the logically minded which is why I suggested a completely different stream. But your idea is good too.
    Not helpful to?

    I think you mean some people are just naturally bad at it! Like I am naturally bad at Maths, that doesn't mean that becasue I'm an arts and humanities orientated person, that I should sit a special Maths exam, surely!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakaroo94)
    Not helpful to?

    I think you mean some people are just naturally bad at it! Like I am naturally bad at Maths, that doesn't mean that becasue I'm an arts and humanities orientated person, that I should sit a special Maths exam, surely!
    Well you don't need to as there is no maths in humanities. Look back to my example about how universities don't make science students take standard maths modules but rather maths modules tailored to science if you're having trouble understanding.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boner in jeans)
    no, just no.

    the amount that gcses are getting dumbed down is ridiculous, most countries run a baccalaureate system where you have to study a wide range of subjects, and you probably won't enjoy half of them, but people i've met in foreign countries just get to it without complaining

    what is this attitude that just because i'm not good at a certain subject, the exam board should dumb it down for me just so i can flaunt a superior set of grades

    arts students who don't do well at science and will never need it, should there be a gcse science for humanitarians/ artists? on what type of bleach would best get the solution would best get the stain out of their carpet or what type of bleach is best to clean your toilet? what about a gcse language for people who aren't good at languages

    it's ridiculous and this thread makes me feel the need to drop iq points

    half the stuff you learn in high school you'll never need again or will apply into the real world, you do them so you have a basic understanding and appreciating of all of this
    This is not about dumbing down. The GCSE English for scientists would be just as rigorous but tailored to the needs of a scientific career. It would probably be harder because it would have a more exact form of comprehension. Rather than you giving your opinion (*cough* waffle *cough* on the thoughts of the author you must give the exact meaning of what the author is saying in a scientific paper based on logical deduction. It would have lessons on how to write and reference basic scientific papers, a skill which is never taught until university level under the current system. A lot of the difficulty of A level science actually comes from the student's inability to even understand the question or their inability to underline all the relevant scientific principles at work in one short sentence. Too many students either write too little or waffle on in the hope of hitting on the answer.

    As you said humanities students don't need science so there doesn't need to be a GCSE for them. One is needed for scientists because a) they are unfairly penalized for not being good at humanities because GCSE English is required for all science degrees and b) GCSE English teaches things that are totally irrelevant to science.
    • Offline

      14
      (Original post by S.R)
      Yeah but I'm saying that a lot of people who are good at science struggle at English Language GCSE yet they can do well in a science degree so it should be tailored to suit how people think rather than one blanket test for all. And Poetry has absolutely nothing to do with science.
      I don't see a problem with encouraging people to think in unfamiliar ways. It's useful to push yourself and master unfamiliar skills which use unfamiliar ways of thinking.

      If you think some universities have entry requirements which prevent them from achieving their mission as best they can, then the better solution is to change the entrance requirements, not change the syllabus of the qualifications they're asking for.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SillyEddy)
      I think that would be brilliant. I am forever using references, writing reports, making lab logs. I have to present a lab report every other week (even in engineering) and you're pretty much at a loss unless you are just naturally good at reporting. You spend so much time learning about metaphors that you forget how to write facts.

      English, currently, is not a "factual" subject like science. It's more of an arts. If they want it to be a core subject, they should keep it more broad and less about creative writing. Currently, it's like calling R.E a science - Reading literature, analysing it and interpreting what it means. English as a core subject should be about grammar, spelling, constructive writing and "real world" skills. It is too artsy at the moment.
      No, it isn't an art subject. There is only a very small creative section, however the aim of that is to be able to properly teach you how to write a good persuasive essay, or write an engaging piece of text because somehow in your life, you will have to do that.

      Again, the analysing 'segment' of the qualification is not to show that you are a liberal artsy fartsy person, it's to show people that you can think for your self, and that you're exploratory and inquisitive. It shows that you can use your own ideas and structure them to form a good argument with evidence.

      And English as just grammar, spelling and constructive writing is what you learn from ages 3-11. At GCSE level it's assumed that you are good at those, because you should be, and that'll reflect in your grades all round.

      What you're doing is mistaking English GCSE as a subject that is meant to shows you're good at writing and speaking it, however if you're a top student, that is assumed already. The syllabus goes far further than that and English is just used as a universal medium to show that.

      Also, regarding the first bit about writing logs and what not, should this not really be included in the Science syllabus, either at A-Level or uni somewhere? The job of a GCSE, and A-Level to an extent is not to specalise you specifically like that, they're meant to show that you're an all round student who can demonstrate skills like rational thought and reason, good essay writing, being able to interpret and learn facts and apply them, being able to structure a good argument. Those are skills evident in Chemistry GCSE, History GCSE, Geography GCSE and English GCSE. Maths is a bit of a unique subject, and at A-Level including further, it's just meant to show that you're really really smart.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Kolya)
      I don't see a problem with encouraging people to think in unfamiliar ways. It's useful to push yourself and master unfamiliar skills which use unfamiliar ways of thinking.
      Then by your logic we should teach English students calculus.

      (Original post by Kolya)
      If you think some universities have entry requirements which prevent them from achieving their mission as best they can, then the better solution is to change the entrance requirements, not change the syllabus of the qualifications they're asking for.
      No because then applicants won't have decent English at all. GCSE English does make sure your English is good just like how Galois Theory makes sure your maths is good but it does it in an unsuitable way for scientists just like how Galois Theory is unsuitable for biologists.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by S.R)
      This is not about dumbing down. The GCSE English for scientists would be just as rigorous but tailored to the needs of a scientific career.
      First of all, what you're doing with that GCSE is narrowing and specializing people, which for you may be good, but then if some naive 13 year old picks it, then when they're 17 and applying to uni realises that they want to do say History?

      Not only that, but you're conceding this would be easier for scientist. Now if I'm Oxford and there's a pool of intelligent scientists, I'd just pick the ones with standard English GCSE, because they're still amazing scientists but they're all round better students.

      It would probably be harder because it would have a more exact form of comprehension. Rather than you giving your opinion (*cough* waffle *cough* on the thoughts of the author you must give the exact meaning of what the author is saying in a scientific paper based on logical deduction
      .

      Have you never sat an English Language GCSE paper? The first question (at least for AQA) is about the exact meaning of what an author is saying based on logical deductions, sure it's not a scientific paper, but the skills are transferable.

      It would have lessons on how to write and reference basic scientific papers, a skill which is never taught until university level under the current system.
      But if it isn't used till university level what is the point of learning something till you're 15, forgetting it all while you're doing A-Levels, then having to be retaught it all at university? It negates the point, you could be doing a different subject that shows of other skills. Universities don't just want amazing scientists, there are 3 GCSE's & A-Levels (more actually) to show that, they also want to know you cant form ideas, and structure them to a good enough degree with reasoning, observing the rules of English. They want you to be open minded and learn new languages. They want to see that you can learn facts and apply knowledge and form good essays in History. They want to know that you can use Maths, and show good logic and reasoning. They don't just want cold hard scientists, or otherwise they wouldn't ask for good grades in English.

      A lot of the difficulty of A level science actually comes from the student's inability to even understand the question or their inability to underline all the relevant scientific principles at work in one short sentence. Too many students either write too little or waffle on in the hope of hitting on the answer.
      So is that not a flaw of the science syllabus? I wouldn't say 'Well ahh, English should teach me how to find key terms and answer 6 mark questions in a History paper.' That's what history is for.

      As you said humanities students don't need science so there doesn't need to be a GCSE for them. One is needed for scientists because a) they are unfairly penalized for not being good at humanities because GCSE English is required for all science degrees and b) GCSE English teaches things that are totally irrelevant to science.
      Just because they're irrelevant to science, doesn't make them irrelevant to universities wants. Like I have said, they don't just want people who know all the bones in the body and knows the periodic table like the alphabet. And no, they are not unfairly penalized. If they cannot take English GCSE they couldn't possible become amazing world renowned scientists if they cannot coherently formulate arguments and ideas into essays. If you can't write a decent two page essay on ideas you can make up (so long as you use relevant evidence - you see the science link there?), how about a 50+ page paper on Quantum Mechanics?

      But seen as we're on your argument? If I do humanities, why should I sit science and maths if it isn't relevant to me and my degree? Because it shows that I'm a well rounded smart student and not a one trick pony. English, is meant to show you're good at English and has transferable skills, it's job is not to tell people you can do science, that is the job science.
      Online

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Kolya)
      If you think some universities have entry requirements which prevent them from achieving their mission as best they can, then the better solution is to change the entrance requirements, not change the syllabus of the qualifications they're asking for.
      This.
      • Offline

        14
        (Original post by S.R)
        Then by your logic we should teach English students calculus.
        Yes, I would support introducing new ways of thinking in Maths classes. (Calculus isn't the best example as it's uninspiring routine computation to begin with. Propositional logic and proof are more suitable.)

        (Original post by S.R)
        No because then applicants won't have decent English at all. GCSE English does make sure your English is good just like how Galois Theory makes sure your maths is good but it does it in an unsuitable way for scientists just like how Galois Theory is unsuitable for biologists.
        Then introduce more English assessment in GCSE Science. If you've a problem with preparation for science then focus on the science courses. Don't start digging into parts of cultural education because you find the science courses and assessment to be deficient.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by rmpr97)
        First of all, what you're doing with that GCSE is narrowing and specializing people, which for you may be good, but then if some naive 13 year old picks it, then when they're 17 and applying to uni realises that they want to do say History?
        You don't do GCSEs when you are 13 you do them at 15. Furthermore you have to make choices at that stage anyway that affect what A levels you can do and hence what degree you can do so saying that it is too early to specialize is a poor argument.

        (Original post by rmpr97)
        Not only that, but you're conceding this would be easier for scientist. Now if I'm Oxford and there's a pool of intelligent scientists, I'd just pick the ones with standard English GCSE, because they're still amazing scientists but they're all round better students.
        This is a massive myth. Only medicine cares about all-roundedness. Natural scientists do not care one little bit. I know from a) being at university and b) talking to admissions tutors there that the only thing they care about is that you are good at science and maths. at my UCL interview someone asked about DofE and the admissions tutor told us to our faces that he doesn't care about DofE, he doesn't care about extracurricular activities and he doesn't care about any non-scientific A levels or GCSEs. Obviuously they ask for a C in English because they need to have some indicator of your English ability but this doesn't mean that they want all-rounded pupils. Science is not a discipline that you excel in by being all-rounded. It is why autistic people tend to be good at science because it is something where you can have just one narrow interest that you excel at and you can go far.


        (Original post by rmpr97)
        Have you never sat an English Language GCSE paper? The first question (at least for AQA) is about the exact meaning of what an author is saying based on logical deductions, sure it's not a scientific paper, but the skills are transferable.
        Maybe that was an anomaly. From my experience it's all creative writing and interpreting poems.


        [QUOTE=rmpr97;40815800]But if it isn't used till university level what is the point of learning something till you're 15, forgetting it all while you're doing A-Levels, then having to be retaught it all at university? It negates the point, you could be doing a different subject that shows of other skills.

        (Original post by rmpr97)
        Universities don't just want amazing scientists
        Listen to me. They do. That is all they want. They don't want someone who is good at History, they don't want someone who is good at Geograhy, they don't want someone who is good at English even so long as they have the minimum required standard. They just want people who are good at science. End of. The only sciences that want all-rounders is Medicine and maybe stuff like pharmacy etc. But pure hardcore physics or chemistry or mathematics or biology, no way.

        (Original post by rmpr97)
        , there are 3 GCSE's & A-Levels (more actually) to show that, they also want to know you cant form ideas, and structure them to a good enough degree with reasoning, observing the rules of English. They want you to be open minded and learn new languages. They want to see that you can learn facts and apply knowledge and form good essays in History. They want to know that you can use Maths, and show good logic and reasoning. They don't just want cold hard scientists, or otherwise they wouldn't ask for good grades in English.
        Again, they want cold, hard scientists. Why? Because science is a cold and hard subject. You must be off your rocker if you think physics admissions tutors want you to be able to "form good essays in history" or "learn a language" In fact they actively discourage students from doing that. at the university I attended in my undergrad days we could choose modules. They stressed to us that we should use the opportunity to just do maths modules. They told us that taking languages or histories or whatever was totally irrelevant and would take our mind off the science. They ask for the grade in English because as I said it's just the standard indicator of competency in English. I have this minimum, a C and any scientist no matter how bad they are at English with enough trying can get a C too. My point is that it does not adequately prepare you for a scientific career.



        (Original post by rmpr97)
        So is that not a flaw of the science syllabus? I wouldn't say 'Well ahh, English should teach me how to find key terms and answer 6 mark questions in a History paper.' That's what history is for.
        English isn't as irrelevant to History as it is to Science. Both History and English are about arguing over opinions and whether sources are biased or not. We don't argue about F=ma, we don't say "Newton was biased because he really liked acceleration". No it is just cold hard fact. History is a totally different ball game

        (Original post by rmpr97)
        Just because they're irrelevant to science, doesn't make them irrelevant to universities wants. Like I have said, they don't just want people who know all the bones in the body and knows the periodic table like the alphabet. And no, they are not unfairly penalized. If they cannot take English GCSE they couldn't possible become amazing world renowned scientists if they cannot coherently formulate arguments and ideas into essays. If you can't write a decent two page essay on ideas you can make up (so long as you use relevant evidence - you see the science link there?), how about a 50+ page paper on Quantum Mechanics?
        For the fourth time, They just want scientists. If one candidate knows his periodic table inside out and nothing else and another has only sketchy knowledge of his periodic table but is good at a range of other irrelevant things, I guarantee you that the chemistry department will take the first person. I got an interview to Oxford with piss poor GCSEs and the subject I applied for only around 30% of people get interviewed so they obviously must not have cared. They also only asked me questions on my subject and nothing else.

        Have you ever read a paper on Quantum Mechanics? There is not much writing.

        (Original post by rmpr97)
        But seen as we're on your argument? If I do humanities, why should I sit science and maths if it isn't relevant to me and my degree? Because it shows that I'm a well rounded smart student and not a one trick pony. English, is meant to show you're good at English and has transferable skills, it's job is not to tell people you can do science, that is the job science.
        For the fifth time, They want one-trick ponies.

        You don't, You could flunk out maths and science and still get into an arts degree and get an arts job. But everybody must do well in GCSE English even if it is just as irrelevant to their career.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Kolya)
        Yes, I would support introducing new ways of thinking in Maths classes. (Calculus isn't the best example as it's uninspiring routine computation to begin with. Propositional logic and proof are more suitable.)
        Uninspiring routine computation? Do you even know what calculus is? Furthermore if you are allowed to turn your nose up at calculus then why are science students not allowed to turn their nose up at poetry?

        (Original post by Kolya)
        Then introduce more English assessment in GCSE Science. If you've a problem with preparation for science then focus on the science courses. Don't start digging into parts of cultural education because you find the science courses and assessment to be deficient.
        it needs to be dug into when it is a required qualification for scientists. English is supposed to teach English, not Science so if we are going to force scientists to do it then we may as well take the opportunity to teach them scientifically relevant English.

        Science or no Science GCSE English has been *******s from day one. The day when you can easily become a poet or an author without any formal knowledge of poems or creative writing is the day it should be declared an ART.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by S.R)
        x
        I think you have an interesting idea, but surely this is simply tailoring a GCSE so that students are better at it?

        I also think you'd be provoking arguments e.g why do science students get an English GCSE aimed at them, we want x subject aimed at English students' etc. Interesting idea though, maybe it could be emphasised more in Science
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        OP, regarding requirements, are you sure said requirement isnt actually for humanities rather than being able to use english in science?
        (could be an attempt to try and obtain well rounded students rather than people who can just use english if that makes sense...)

        nonetheless, it sounds like an interesting idea, i thought of combining english for scientists with the actual sciences but meh...

        (Original post by Xiomara)
        Mobile typing!
        does that not make it worse given the existence of auto correct? :holmes:
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        What a ridiculous idea. So under your proposals we would end up with excellent Scientists who are great communicators; so long as they only communicate on issues regarding Science. Cut to the core of the problem and admit it without blaming others; you were not great at creative writing or writing to suit different audiences. Writing is a skill not everyone has, wants, or can even improve; a fact not many people like to admit to themselves.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources

      Make your revision easier

      OMAM

      Ultimate Of Mice And Men Thread

      Plot, context, character analysis and everything in between.

      Notes

      Revision Hub

      All our revision materials in one place

      Love books

      Common grammar and vocabulary problems

      Get your questions asked and answered

      Useful literary websitesStudy help rules and posting guidelines

      Groups associated with this forum:

      View associated groups
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • 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

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