PhD support group?

ffeindadifyr

studentphil wrote:

Philosophy is the most wonderful subject for developing thinking skills and all the other key skills but

I agree... just wish I had done philosophy - never studied it but have tried to do some reading on the subject. I think the thinking and argument building skills (like in Physics) would lead to a number of very interesting job opps. i.e. transferring to law or Buissness or any other Arts subject as the critical argument is the key.

pboae

studentphil wrote:

So there is no crisis in the lack of people taking science degrees then, unlike you read in the papers.

If the current situation is a crisis we are heading for total meltdown.

Science GCSE's are now usually taught as combined subjects (in state schools at any rate). So instead of Chemistry, Physics, Biology, you study Single Science or Double Science. Both are combined courses, but Double Science is the timetable equivalent of two GCSE's.

In the last couple of years many secondary schools have stopped making DS compulsory. Instead you have compulsory SS and if you want to take DS you use one of your 3 'free' choices. The take-up of DS has plummeted.

SS is not sufficient to take a Science A-Level, you need at least DS. There aren't many Science degrees that will take you on without at least one Science A-Level.

What I don't understand is this: if they are only going to teach a single science, why not teach an actual subject, i.e. biology, chemistry, physics, instead of Single Science? At least then kids would have the option of going on to do a Science A-Level if they wanted to.

In the meantime, as DS is being made optional, RE is increasingly becoming compulsory. The RE syllabus now is much more about understanding and tolerance, which is all very useful, but it's not going to help us get a new generation of scientists. Completely incidentally, RE tends to get much higher grades, so it looks good on the league tables. But I am sure that is quite irrelevant.

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

ffeindadifyr

I'd hate the idea of only being able to chose one science subject at such a young age - I didn't even know what Physics was then! I did Double science as I also had 2 Welsh GCSE's to do - I found that what we did in that was more than enough grounding to give you a taste of what the A-level might be like.

I have to say though... Physics and Chemistry GCSE's were nothing like the A-level course... it seemed as though we started from scratch in both subjects.

studentphil

RE is an important subject--- if you do not mine.

Ethics are important is science though some might wish they were not.

It was not uncommon in the 70's to only take two sciences at O level then to take Botony and more specialist sciences than B C P at A level.

But balanced science should stay until 16. I did GCSE BIO. 2 hours a week, GCSE CHEM 2 hours a week and we used to only get one hour for GCSE physics- no idea why.

I did BIO and Chem at A level, but the chem teacher was so odd that I changed that for Economics. I was really into going a science degree at one time, but somehow I ended up with philosophy which was the worst move of my life.
Sadly now it is a bit late to go back to the sciences

pboae

studentphil wrote:

RE is an important subject--- if you do not mine.

Ethics are important is science though some might wish they were not.

I don't disagree that it's important, but not important enough to make it compulsory at the expense of usable science (as Single Science is of no academic use beyond GCSE level). You can still take RE at A-level and beyond, without having studied it at GCSE level.

But you won't find much ethics in an RE course, science ethics should be taught in science, not left to other subjects.

talksalot81

ffeindadifyr wrote:

I'd hate the idea of only being able to chose one science subject at such a young age - I didn't even know what Physics was then! I did Double science as I also had 2 Welsh GCSE's to do - I found that what we did in that was more than enough grounding to give you a taste of what the A-level might be like.

I have to say though... Physics and Chemistry GCSE's were nothing like the A-level course... it seemed as though we started from scratch in both subjects.

I dont know about you, but I didnt believe Physics at pre-uni level was anything to do with real physics. Going between the two is a culture shock. In school you are learning facts and figures, it seemed to me all subjects were the same, the only difference being the detail of what you learn. Into uni and (for my course at least) the main motivation is understanding and applying knowledge... knowing a load of facts alone is all but useless!

Someone noted previously the difficulty in finding jobs.... then we have discussion about our supposed shortage of science graduates. I get told all the time about 'in-demand' analytical skills. But in demand to who!? Most employers seem to get picky at the last minute! We have the analytical skills but all of a sudden they want experience in a specific area... so all of a sudden the pool of individuals is massacred! The employers should look closer to home before they complain. If they believe what they preach, they should not discriminate against those without the specific experience and accept a short term 'training' programme.

talksalot81

pboae wrote:

I don't disagree that it's (RE) important, but not important enough to make it compulsory at the expense of usable science

RE isnt compulsory... I did not do it. If you can come up with justification not to do it, then that is fine. In my case I argued that I wanted to do an extra science subject and that was not possible if I must do RE.

ffeindadifyr

talksalot81 wrote:

I dont know about you, but I didnt believe Physics at pre-uni level was anything to do with real physics. Going between the two is a culture shock. In school you are learning facts and figures, it seemed to me all subjects were the same, the only difference being the detail of what you learn. Into uni and (for my course at least) the main motivation is understanding and applying knowledge... knowing a load of facts alone is all but useless!

I can't agree more... hence why my Physics A-level teacher was quoted as saying I was the worst Physics student he ever had and now I've ended up with a 1st and a PhD in Physics - I could always apply the knowledege just didn;t cotton on that A-levels are all about memorising facts and figures - something that I now remind students that I tutor.

talksalot81 wrote:

Someone noted previously the difficulty in finding jobs.... then we have discussion about our supposed shortage of science graduates. I get told all the time about 'in-demand' analytical skills. But in demand to who!? Most employers seem to get picky at the last minute! We have the analytical skills but all of a sudden they want experience in a specific area... so all of a sudden the pool of individuals is massacred! The employers should look closer to home before they complain. If they believe what they preach, they should not discriminate against those without the specific experience and accept a short term 'training' programme.

I know what you mean - i.e. you need to know all the acronymns a.s.o. one thing I've learnt from my "arty" friends is that scientists tend to be quite negative when it comes to pointing out that we don't know this or that. For example I would say I was comfortable using excel where my mate in Drama who has heard of and used excel to make a pretty table believes that he is now an expert excel user! .

pboae

talksalot81 wrote:

RE isnt compulsory... I did not do it. If you can come up with justification not to do it, then that is fine. In my case I argued that I wanted to do an extra science subject and that was not possible if I must do RE.

Sorry, I think that I haven't explained myself clearly. This is a fairly new change, it started around 2 years ago in the last shake up of GCSE's. Many state schools are opting to make Double Science optional and instead making RE compulsory. I cannot speak for every school, but both of my nieces (different schools in different cities), had to take RE, it was not optional, they were not allowed to make a case not to do it, and they could not choose another subject instead. Both of them would have preferred to drop RE, one wanted to take Double Science instead, and the other wanted to take an additional language.

I work in a Science Centre and since this came up I've been asking teachers about it when they vist. The majority of secondary schools seem to be moving over to this pattern. I hope more of them show the flexibility that your school did.

talksalot81

Ah sorry pboae...

I dont know whether there is a way around, but when I went through, RE was meant to be compulsory too. I guess you are just highlighting the point and the trend it sets... a very concerning one at that!