tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246668680305643643.post1459277740641146873..comments2007-07-15T23:18:46.294+01:00Comments on Left of Nowhere: The wrecking of British science.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246668680305643643.post-38534305200011927732007-06-13T10:02:00.000+01:002007-06-13T10:02:00.000+01:00Definitely agree that science education is losing ...Definitely agree that science education is losing it's quality here - the dumbing down is prevalent at all levels, from school-age upwards.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure when/how the problem started though. What I do know is that the most talented scientists aren't given sufficient financial incentive to build on/pass on their knowledge. Future generations miss out on quality/inspiring teaching as the calibre of candidates going for this is significantly lower than that of arts/humanities subjects.<BR/><BR/>The proportion of secondary school history teachers with a first class degree is something like 83%. The proportion of scientists with firsts is less than 30%. Whilst academic success doesn't equate to teaching efficacy, the difference between being taught/guided by teachers who are passionate, grounded and well-connected within their subject and those who aren't is striking. <BR/><BR/>Rightly/wrongly, the best-qualified teachers find themselves lured by the private sector, meaning 93% of school children miss out on their expertise. <BR/><BR/>There's also the problem of subject specialists in the state sector - 83% of secondary school science teachers are biologists by trade; 10% chemists and 7% physicists. The biologists find themselves doubling up in chemistry and psychology. The physicists are so few in number that they don't need to bother doubling up as mathmaticians/IT teachers do it for them.<BR/><BR/>Consequently, the quality and attractiveness of science education goes down. It'd be nice if the Dept of Education could rectify this - a 5k golden hello is just not enough. <BR/><BR/>xGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07955578253184763894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246668680305643643.post-22628960485900681662007-05-22T15:50:00.000+01:002007-05-22T15:50:00.000+01:00Oh gosh, thanks for that report Charlie! I shall d...Oh gosh, thanks for that report Charlie! I shall definitely try and have a read!<BR/><BR/>I suppose universities can't win, I guess. If it's the employers that provide the funding for these courses, then fair enough, the universities have to give them what they want. But in a way, it's turning education into a private industry.<BR/><BR/>We're not as physics saavy as our continental neighbours, I do agree with you there, but it seems the only people willing to sponsor physics students are the military. Everyone else seems to want engineers (who are nothing more than applied physicists, really).: )https://www.blogger.com/profile/11973794763403472235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246668680305643643.post-10479941549977863892007-05-22T15:43:00.000+01:002007-05-22T15:43:00.000+01:00Your point about on-the-job training for packaging...Your point about on-the-job training for packaging is a perfectly good one, but the poor old universities are constantly being slated for producing graduates that aren't skilled for business, and then slated again when they do! Traineeship schemes are a grey area in terms of who is expected to provide them (and how the schemes are accredited), and so university courses have been expected to fill the gap - for better or worse.<BR/><BR/>Physics is a special case in UK science, and it really is in a bad way in this country. Everything you say in your original piece is very valid when applied to the study of physics, but when we get down to it, the problem is that we don't do enough physics in this country.<BR/><BR/>I don't like to do too much personal trumpet-blowing, but this gives a brief overview of the problem<BR/>http://uncommonelements.blogspot.com/2007/02/its-desert-out-there.html<BR/>(note I don't mention PhD study, for which physics has one of the highest unemployment rates as well).<BR/><BR/>The Roberts Report from 2002 on the state of science education made the very same comment as you about the over-reliance of UK science on the pharma industry, and bad though things are now, they're nothing compared to how science will look in the UK if the pharma industry falls to bits.<BR/><BR/>(Here's a link to the Report if you fancy reading a huge independant Government Review. Don't blame you if you don't!)<BR/><BR/>http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/enterprise_and_productivity/research_and_enterprise/ent_res_roberts.cfm<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work.Charlie Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246668680305643643.post-47176387916776264192007-05-22T15:22:00.000+01:002007-05-22T15:22:00.000+01:00Hey, thanks for your comment.I picked the physics ...Hey, thanks for your comment.<BR/><BR/>I picked the physics data largely because physics is where I have my experience and I probably should have clarified. I guess my particular squabble is with the shutting down of physics departments. :(<BR/><BR/>Chemistry graduates in this country do indeed have a lot more prospects than physics, as do biology graduates. Pharmaceutical companies seem to be all I find when looking for science jobs in the UK.<BR/><BR/>I echo your points about requiring a postgraduate degree, and the finance behind it is something that I feel makes more graduates opt against it. The time and effort put in to gaining the extra qualifications rarely pays off as quickly. Very few institutions tend to have funded places (for master's), which is a great shame.<BR/><BR/>With those subjects that I picked out, my main concern is whether one needs a degree to enter the field, or a traineeship. Learning about packaging design is surely something that can be done on the job? Does it really require a whole degree?<BR/><BR/>That way, universities can spread their resources towards other subjects that may desperately need the funding.: )https://www.blogger.com/profile/11973794763403472235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246668680305643643.post-1671779272832839662007-05-22T14:59:00.000+01:002007-05-22T14:59:00.000+01:00Nush,Sir Harry's piece was great, and it's good th...Nush,<BR/><BR/>Sir Harry's piece was great, and it's good that you're praising it, but you're being very selective with the evidence that you use. <BR/><BR/>You say that "Most end up in jobs such as IT", and follow up by citing a very old piece of data (when the newest iteration of 'What Do Graduates Do' is very much more easily available) for a subject which is not typical of all science outcomes - physics. This distorts the argument. <BR/><BR/>Many science graduates entering the labour market straight from a degree will not do so in a science job. If you check the outcomes for chemistry, for example, though (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/p!elkbpbj?subject_id=7), you'll see that a job in science IS actually the most common employment outcome on graduation. <BR/><BR/>But, of course, for a serious career in science, you'll probably need a postgraduate degree, which is why so many science graduates do doctorates. That's a serious commitment in terms of time and finances that many young people are reluctant to choose - although for obvious reasons, they seem happy to do so when it comes to medicine.<BR/><BR/>As to the question of the subjects you deem 'ridiculous', don't be fooled by the labels on the courses. Some of these courses are deliberately designed and set up with employers for people aspiring to work in emerging industries. 'Adventure' is very specific kind of tourism management degree, for example. 'Packaging' is a graphic design degree with a very practical focus (whether you think we need packaging is another matter), etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com