This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- what r ur honest gcse opinions :)
- Official Year 11 Chat Thread 2024-25
- Anyone else joining electronic and electrical engineering with foundation year?
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- OMAM
- year 11 gyg !!
- Need a lot of help for gcse
- Quotesss!!
- Arabic A-level
- Is Chemistry the hardest A-Level?
- mock results and how can i improve
- Any tips for each GCSE subjects?
- Gcse science
- A level options
- Jekyll and Hyde
- I got all 8s and 9s at GCSE AMA
- GCSE 2024 GYG - my academic comebackkk
- gcse cramming
- Having issues with GCSE English
- STRESSED: maths + english lit revision tips??
"Physics GCSE insultingly easy, non-specific and vague"
I was looking for some physics GCSE help, and I came across this article. It's quite recent.
Your thoughts?
Physics GCSE papers are full of questions that are vague, stupid, insultingly easy, political, and non-scientific.
So says secondary school physics teacher Wellington Grey in an open letter to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the AQA exam board.
Grey writes: "I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics. My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn't cover anything I recognise as physics."
Grey lists examples to support his complaints about the latest exam papers: one is a simple comprehension question that tests only a pupil's reading ability; another asks why a dark skinned person would be at a lower risk of getting skin cancer. Acceptable answers are "more UV absorbed by dark skin (more melanin)", or "less UV penetrates deep to damage living cells / tissue".
All well and good, but what about Hooke's law? Grey argues that questions so far removed from the traditional subject of physics amount to an ambush on the students sitting the paper.
AQA, the exam board behind the questions, disagreed. It told us: "The evidence we have is that the mark distributions for these new papers are similar to those for the previous papers so candidates appear to find them equally as accessible e.g. grade boundaries are at similar percentages."
It conceded that some of the questions were not well written, but explained that "some of the questions quoted are from specimen material", and are therefore not as well edited as real exam questions.
Grey says his pupils complained the exam did not test the material they had studied. He argues that they are right.
He says the new physics course allows for plenty of debate about science, but that "pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate".
In its defence, the AQA says: "Our specifications meet the new requirements for 'science' set by our regulator, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, and are fully accredited. The revised requirements place a greater emphasis on 'how science works'. This is the entitlement curriculum for every student: the focus is on scientific literacy with the aim of engaging all students."
The letter comes as thinktank Civitas issued a report saying the school curriculum in the UK has been "corrupted" by political interference. The group says that traditional subjects have been hijacked "to promote fashionable causes such as gender awareness, the environment, and anti-racism". Teachers, meanwhile, are expected to help further the government's social goals, rather than impart knowledge to their students.
Civitas singles out science for particular criticism, while noting that "no subject has escaped the blight of political interference".
Author David Perks suggests that the new scientific curriculum will put more students off studying the subject. The report cites three independent studies that found "students exposed to [the new course] are less likely to trust scientists and less likely to want to continue science at A-level".
Further, independent schools are choosing to enter their students for the International GCSE instead, which still offers the option of studying the three sciences independently. Perks says this is creating an "educational apartheid".
Meanwhile, the DfES says it is not responsible for approving exam specifications. It sent us a statement saying: "There is much, much more to physics than precision and numbers, we would be doing young people no service to undersell it to them by focusing solely on these aspects". ®
So says secondary school physics teacher Wellington Grey in an open letter to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the AQA exam board.
Grey writes: "I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics. My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn't cover anything I recognise as physics."
Grey lists examples to support his complaints about the latest exam papers: one is a simple comprehension question that tests only a pupil's reading ability; another asks why a dark skinned person would be at a lower risk of getting skin cancer. Acceptable answers are "more UV absorbed by dark skin (more melanin)", or "less UV penetrates deep to damage living cells / tissue".
All well and good, but what about Hooke's law? Grey argues that questions so far removed from the traditional subject of physics amount to an ambush on the students sitting the paper.
AQA, the exam board behind the questions, disagreed. It told us: "The evidence we have is that the mark distributions for these new papers are similar to those for the previous papers so candidates appear to find them equally as accessible e.g. grade boundaries are at similar percentages."
It conceded that some of the questions were not well written, but explained that "some of the questions quoted are from specimen material", and are therefore not as well edited as real exam questions.
Grey says his pupils complained the exam did not test the material they had studied. He argues that they are right.
He says the new physics course allows for plenty of debate about science, but that "pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate".
In its defence, the AQA says: "Our specifications meet the new requirements for 'science' set by our regulator, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, and are fully accredited. The revised requirements place a greater emphasis on 'how science works'. This is the entitlement curriculum for every student: the focus is on scientific literacy with the aim of engaging all students."
The letter comes as thinktank Civitas issued a report saying the school curriculum in the UK has been "corrupted" by political interference. The group says that traditional subjects have been hijacked "to promote fashionable causes such as gender awareness, the environment, and anti-racism". Teachers, meanwhile, are expected to help further the government's social goals, rather than impart knowledge to their students.
Civitas singles out science for particular criticism, while noting that "no subject has escaped the blight of political interference".
Author David Perks suggests that the new scientific curriculum will put more students off studying the subject. The report cites three independent studies that found "students exposed to [the new course] are less likely to trust scientists and less likely to want to continue science at A-level".
Further, independent schools are choosing to enter their students for the International GCSE instead, which still offers the option of studying the three sciences independently. Perks says this is creating an "educational apartheid".
Meanwhile, the DfES says it is not responsible for approving exam specifications. It sent us a statement saying: "There is much, much more to physics than precision and numbers, we would be doing young people no service to undersell it to them by focusing solely on these aspects". ®
Your thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
Rubbish. Maybe GCSEs are easy. I don't think so, I think the grading's just not how it was in the olden days, I bet they're the same difficulty as ever.
You gotta remember the main thing tested in GCSE is ability to know things about a wide range of subjects. Not knowing stuff about to composition of atoms that's pointless to most people's careers.
So why should we go deeper than we do at GCSE?
Save it for A-levels!
I love how the older generation thinks we're all stupid. My grandma was like "Yes, but aren't GCSEs pointlessly easy". And I showed her my past papers. She shut up. It's just publicity.
You gotta remember the main thing tested in GCSE is ability to know things about a wide range of subjects. Not knowing stuff about to composition of atoms that's pointless to most people's careers.
So why should we go deeper than we do at GCSE?
Save it for A-levels!
I love how the older generation thinks we're all stupid. My grandma was like "Yes, but aren't GCSEs pointlessly easy". And I showed her my past papers. She shut up. It's just publicity.
The group says that traditional subjects have been hijacked "to promote fashionable causes such as gender awareness, the environment, and anti-racism".
That explains the abundance of questions like "Jane believes X but Simon believes Y. Explain why Jane is correct"
And questions that feature people called Abdul, Singh, Raj, Raaj, Rajesh, Rajin, Mohammed, Mahmud etc. etc.
well i dunno, i've never done triple award but the bit about 'traditional subjects have been hijacked "to promote fashionable causes such as gender awareness, the environment, and anti-racism". Teachers, meanwhile, are expected to help further the government's social goals, rather than impart knowledge to their students' is sorta true.
also, "pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate" is true, i had a look at my sis' textbook and it looks terrible
physics is supposed to be interesting, but the way they're presented is horrible. it took me bloody 5 years to finally like it as whenever i ask a question about it, the teachers never explain it properly
also, "pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate" is true, i had a look at my sis' textbook and it looks terrible
physics is supposed to be interesting, but the way they're presented is horrible. it took me bloody 5 years to finally like it as whenever i ask a question about it, the teachers never explain it properly
its not easy. GCSE is based a lot on facts anyway. a lot of people dont understand a subject unless they carry it on to A - level, then they gather a real understanding.
marking i think is a little leaner [sp] these days though.
marking i think is a little leaner [sp] these days though.
I wish physics was even easier for tomorrow 
"It conceded that some of the questions were not well written, but explained that "some of the questions quoted are from specimen material", and are therefore not as well edited as real exam questions.
Grey says his pupils complained the exam did not test the material they had studied. He argues that they are right.
"Civitas singles out science for particular criticism, while noting that "no subject has escaped the blight of political interference"."
I agree.
Grey says his pupils complained the exam did not test the material they had studied. He argues that they are right.
"Civitas singles out science for particular criticism, while noting that "no subject has escaped the blight of political interference"."
I agree.
Daisuke
I completely agree with Grey. These days its all about learning FOR the exam and not about the actual topic itself... you produce a level of understanding that will meet requirements of the exam you're doing and not for the level of understanding Physics requires at that level.
i agree they are sitlll hard though im soOooO worried about physics! help lol
Yes, GCSE is more of a test of how hard you work than how much you understand your subject. But maybe that's a good thing? I know for a fact that I'm dropping physics after GCSEs, and I'm never going to study theoretical physics at uni or try to get a job in aeronautics or nuclear power.
But I'm pretty sure that what matters is that I worked hard to get my (hopefully) A*, and my Uni of choice will see that and take it as evidence that I'm not a slacker.
In terms of maths, how many people who take the paper are ever going to need to factorise a quadratic? Not many. Yet we all learn it- which is not a bad thing, I don't think. I'll be able to get good depth of understanding in my A levels so...
But I'm pretty sure that what matters is that I worked hard to get my (hopefully) A*, and my Uni of choice will see that and take it as evidence that I'm not a slacker.
In terms of maths, how many people who take the paper are ever going to need to factorise a quadratic? Not many. Yet we all learn it- which is not a bad thing, I don't think. I'll be able to get good depth of understanding in my A levels so...
Things are only ever easy if you know the answer, although I know what that teacher is talking about. I'm doing GCSE Physics, and, a few months ago, was given an A2 revision guide by by teacher and asked to read it quickly. 1 hour later he have me a paper whihc I got 55% on, apparently a B on that module. He did that with most of the class to prove a point very similar to the one that Grey was making in the quoted arctical. A week later he gave us the same test again and I barely got a C, so mabey memory is the key.
I'm taking GCSE physics next week. The teacher may as well be talking Greek, but the paper is multiple choice 
Related discussions
- what r ur honest gcse opinions :)
- Official Year 11 Chat Thread 2024-25
- Anyone else joining electronic and electrical engineering with foundation year?
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- OMAM
- year 11 gyg !!
- Need a lot of help for gcse
- Quotesss!!
- Arabic A-level
- Is Chemistry the hardest A-Level?
- mock results and how can i improve
- Any tips for each GCSE subjects?
- Gcse science
- A level options
- Jekyll and Hyde
- I got all 8s and 9s at GCSE AMA
- GCSE 2024 GYG - my academic comebackkk
- gcse cramming
- Having issues with GCSE English
- STRESSED: maths + english lit revision tips??
Latest
Trending
