The 'Death of Physics'
-
Apparently, the new science curriculum has changed GCSE physics teaching from imparting basic mathematical models that go some way to describe the behaviour of matter and energy into an exercise in regurgitating the political and cultural norms of the day[^]. Typical questions include: `why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?’ An acceptable answer is: Can be processed by computer / ipod `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ 'Below which age is it recommended that children use a mobile phone in emergencies only?' What a great way to introduce our children to the most important, complex and subtle of the natural sciences. Where the hell are the bloody Tories on this rampant idiocy and near Lysenkoism?
-
Apparently, the new science curriculum has changed GCSE physics teaching from imparting basic mathematical models that go some way to describe the behaviour of matter and energy into an exercise in regurgitating the political and cultural norms of the day[^]. Typical questions include: `why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?’ An acceptable answer is: Can be processed by computer / ipod `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ 'Below which age is it recommended that children use a mobile phone in emergencies only?' What a great way to introduce our children to the most important, complex and subtle of the natural sciences. Where the hell are the bloody Tories on this rampant idiocy and near Lysenkoism?
You don't need to worry. Now that Gordon has taken over the mantle of Glorious Leader, he will usher in an age of enlightenment and reason.
-
You don't need to worry. Now that Gordon has taken over the mantle of Glorious Leader, he will usher in an age of enlightenment and reason.
Oh dear god I hope you're being sarcastic... :-)
-
Apparently, the new science curriculum has changed GCSE physics teaching from imparting basic mathematical models that go some way to describe the behaviour of matter and energy into an exercise in regurgitating the political and cultural norms of the day[^]. Typical questions include: `why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?’ An acceptable answer is: Can be processed by computer / ipod `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ 'Below which age is it recommended that children use a mobile phone in emergencies only?' What a great way to introduce our children to the most important, complex and subtle of the natural sciences. Where the hell are the bloody Tories on this rampant idiocy and near Lysenkoism?
The whole secondary educational system is in dire straits - and this has been going on for at least the last 20 years. When I was at school we were taught mathematics using the ridiculous SMP and SMILE systems - as soon as I went on to do my A Levels I discovered exactly how useless these teaching methods are, and just how far behind I was kids who'd learnt maths in a proper fashion. Whilst it's important to have the ability to apply abstract learning (such as trigonometry) to real world situations, you've got to first have that abstract knowledge taught to you. What on earth do they hope to teach by asking "why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals"? And would the answer "Because the Government aims to sell off the analouge wave lengths in the future in a money for old rope manner, wasting the proceeds on 'Fact Finding' trips to Hawaii" count as a credit?
-
The whole secondary educational system is in dire straits - and this has been going on for at least the last 20 years. When I was at school we were taught mathematics using the ridiculous SMP and SMILE systems - as soon as I went on to do my A Levels I discovered exactly how useless these teaching methods are, and just how far behind I was kids who'd learnt maths in a proper fashion. Whilst it's important to have the ability to apply abstract learning (such as trigonometry) to real world situations, you've got to first have that abstract knowledge taught to you. What on earth do they hope to teach by asking "why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals"? And would the answer "Because the Government aims to sell off the analouge wave lengths in the future in a money for old rope manner, wasting the proceeds on 'Fact Finding' trips to Hawaii" count as a credit?
martin_hughes wrote:
Because the Government aims to sell off the analouge wave lengths in the future in a money for old rope manner, wasting the proceeds on 'Fact Finding' trips to Hawaii
Give that man an A*.
-
Apparently, the new science curriculum has changed GCSE physics teaching from imparting basic mathematical models that go some way to describe the behaviour of matter and energy into an exercise in regurgitating the political and cultural norms of the day[^]. Typical questions include: `why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?’ An acceptable answer is: Can be processed by computer / ipod `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ 'Below which age is it recommended that children use a mobile phone in emergencies only?' What a great way to introduce our children to the most important, complex and subtle of the natural sciences. Where the hell are the bloody Tories on this rampant idiocy and near Lysenkoism?
Pfffft. Physics was dead long before that. Back in 1998 I was getting kids from highschool in my university classes that couldn't draw graphs without using a graphing calculator. I had exams where they would have to graph things and they would come up to me before the exam and ask how could there be plots on the exam if no calculator was allowed? I was stunned so I said "What do you mean?" and they said, "Well, how do we know how to divide up the graph and mark the lines if we don't have our calculators?". Sad. Sad. Sad. When I was a teaching assistant during grad school I got so frustrated with one class that I exploded and told them they were all dumb and stupid and weren't worth my time or effort. To my absolute relief I was promptly removed from all teaching assistant duties and assigned to a research professor to help him write simulation code. It was my pride and joy that never again was I asked to give tutorials to a class. In light of this, all I can say is thank God I'm no longer teaching anyone.
-
Apparently, the new science curriculum has changed GCSE physics teaching from imparting basic mathematical models that go some way to describe the behaviour of matter and energy into an exercise in regurgitating the political and cultural norms of the day[^]. Typical questions include: `why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?’ An acceptable answer is: Can be processed by computer / ipod `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ 'Below which age is it recommended that children use a mobile phone in emergencies only?' What a great way to introduce our children to the most important, complex and subtle of the natural sciences. Where the hell are the bloody Tories on this rampant idiocy and near Lysenkoism?
Yes, the teaching and learning of the sciences and mathematics have always been a challenge. Some pupils absorb the information better and easier than others. Some teachers are excellent in delivering their subject. Others are hopeless, others have lost their enthusiasm. And the National Curriculum does from time to time change. To have a better understanding of GCSE Physics, this from AQA http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4451-W-SP-07.PDF#glance[^] is required reading.
-
Pfffft. Physics was dead long before that. Back in 1998 I was getting kids from highschool in my university classes that couldn't draw graphs without using a graphing calculator. I had exams where they would have to graph things and they would come up to me before the exam and ask how could there be plots on the exam if no calculator was allowed? I was stunned so I said "What do you mean?" and they said, "Well, how do we know how to divide up the graph and mark the lines if we don't have our calculators?". Sad. Sad. Sad. When I was a teaching assistant during grad school I got so frustrated with one class that I exploded and told them they were all dumb and stupid and weren't worth my time or effort. To my absolute relief I was promptly removed from all teaching assistant duties and assigned to a research professor to help him write simulation code. It was my pride and joy that never again was I asked to give tutorials to a class. In light of this, all I can say is thank God I'm no longer teaching anyone.
73Zeppelin wrote:
couldn't draw graphs without using a graphing calculator
There are people I know that if you gave them the small till receipt from a grocery store and asked them to add the values together, they couldn't do it without a calculator. When I were young (I am showing my age now! ) calculators didn't exist, so that was done either mentally or with pencil and paper. Using a calculator makes you lazy. Perhaps there should be a campaign to bring back log books (logarithm tables, Sine+Cosine+Tangent tables and Square Root tables etc). I presume most older people will understand what they were.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
couldn't draw graphs without using a graphing calculator
There are people I know that if you gave them the small till receipt from a grocery store and asked them to add the values together, they couldn't do it without a calculator. When I were young (I am showing my age now! ) calculators didn't exist, so that was done either mentally or with pencil and paper. Using a calculator makes you lazy. Perhaps there should be a campaign to bring back log books (logarithm tables, Sine+Cosine+Tangent tables and Square Root tables etc). I presume most older people will understand what they were.
Log books are no different to a calculator though - it's looking something up in a table. I've got no issue with people using a calculator when it's for things that are practically impossible to work out in their head, such as logs, or where absolute precision is required for things like square roots. It's where calculators are used by default when the brain could easily do it that the problem lies.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
couldn't draw graphs without using a graphing calculator
There are people I know that if you gave them the small till receipt from a grocery store and asked them to add the values together, they couldn't do it without a calculator. When I were young (I am showing my age now! ) calculators didn't exist, so that was done either mentally or with pencil and paper. Using a calculator makes you lazy. Perhaps there should be a campaign to bring back log books (logarithm tables, Sine+Cosine+Tangent tables and Square Root tables etc). I presume most older people will understand what they were.
I suppose I should have more sympathy for students these days because it's the system that is failing them. When I had my little bouts of anger and frustration I was also younger and more reactionary. Still, some of the people in those classes deserved to be called stupid and dumb as a wake-up call. Wilfull ignorance is not an excuse for a poor secondary school education. Anyways... Yes, I used to use log-tables in my chemistry class and would spend hours doing a titration properly. We were forced to stay over-time if we didn't get it right. Some nights I was at the chemistry lab until 9pm at night having been there basically all day. I also used to sleep in the graduate students office. Some of the electrodynamics assignments were so difficult I'd spend day after day just working on them and sleeping in the office. I'd grab showers at the athletic department in the mornings. I basically lived at the university during the last year of my course-work. Unfortunately, these days it doesn't seem to be acceptable to make students work and suffer for their achievements. Learning is not easy - it requires effort and repetition and a sound knowledge of the basics. I think students aren't getting the proper education these days. Instead the debate is whether or not to teach complete garbage like ID in the courses or not to "stress" students with excessive maths. Our society has become a TV and media society where problems are conveniently resolved in 1/2hour to 1 hour time slots on TV and everything ends happily and wonderfully. Well, in life that's not what happens. But this is now turning into a rant against TV, so I'll stop here and just say that I no longer have the patience to teach anymore. But I agree with everything you say. There is no substitute for pencil and paper.
-
I suppose I should have more sympathy for students these days because it's the system that is failing them. When I had my little bouts of anger and frustration I was also younger and more reactionary. Still, some of the people in those classes deserved to be called stupid and dumb as a wake-up call. Wilfull ignorance is not an excuse for a poor secondary school education. Anyways... Yes, I used to use log-tables in my chemistry class and would spend hours doing a titration properly. We were forced to stay over-time if we didn't get it right. Some nights I was at the chemistry lab until 9pm at night having been there basically all day. I also used to sleep in the graduate students office. Some of the electrodynamics assignments were so difficult I'd spend day after day just working on them and sleeping in the office. I'd grab showers at the athletic department in the mornings. I basically lived at the university during the last year of my course-work. Unfortunately, these days it doesn't seem to be acceptable to make students work and suffer for their achievements. Learning is not easy - it requires effort and repetition and a sound knowledge of the basics. I think students aren't getting the proper education these days. Instead the debate is whether or not to teach complete garbage like ID in the courses or not to "stress" students with excessive maths. Our society has become a TV and media society where problems are conveniently resolved in 1/2hour to 1 hour time slots on TV and everything ends happily and wonderfully. Well, in life that's not what happens. But this is now turning into a rant against TV, so I'll stop here and just say that I no longer have the patience to teach anymore. But I agree with everything you say. There is no substitute for pencil and paper.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think students aren't getting the proper education these days.
Government has a poor track record running anything.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think students aren't getting the proper education these days.
Government has a poor track record running anything.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Then who or what should determine what should be a National Curriculum
There should be a national curriculum?
-
Yes, the teaching and learning of the sciences and mathematics have always been a challenge. Some pupils absorb the information better and easier than others. Some teachers are excellent in delivering their subject. Others are hopeless, others have lost their enthusiasm. And the National Curriculum does from time to time change. To have a better understanding of GCSE Physics, this from AQA http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4451-W-SP-07.PDF#glance[^] is required reading.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think students aren't getting the proper education these days.
Government has a poor track record running anything.
Red Stateler wrote:
Government has a poor track record running anything.
Depends on the governmental policy. I was educated in the public school system and don't regret it. Private schools aren't a haven for success, either. Most are rife with drugs and corruption. MIT was accused of handing out degrees in exchange for money. I don't believe this was a particularly isolated point, either. I also saw cases of students pushed through the university system that really had no business graduating with a degree.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Then who or what should determine what should be a National Curriculum
There should be a national curriculum?
-
The national curriculum is the root of the problem, it's way too subject to the political whims of the day as it can be seen and used as a tool to manipulate the national character. Not 'enough girls' doing science - make it about opinion and current affairs. Some Islamists blow up a bus in London? - More civics lessons and a whitewashing of Islamic theology. Most independent schools opt out of it, many state schools would if given the choice, and its not hard to see why.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Government has a poor track record running anything.
Depends on the governmental policy. I was educated in the public school system and don't regret it. Private schools aren't a haven for success, either. Most are rife with drugs and corruption. MIT was accused of handing out degrees in exchange for money. I don't believe this was a particularly isolated point, either. I also saw cases of students pushed through the university system that really had no business graduating with a degree.
I was also educated in public schools which, in itself, should make a good argument to immediately shut them all down. Private schools[^], however, are significantly cheaper and yield far better test scores than public schools. Government is essentially a forceful monopoly and monopolies have a tendency to increase prices and decrease quality.
-
The national curriculum is the root of the problem, it's way too subject to the political whims of the day as it can be seen and used as a tool to manipulate the national character. Not 'enough girls' doing science - make it about opinion and current affairs. Some Islamists blow up a bus in London? - More civics lessons and a whitewashing of Islamic theology. Most independent schools opt out of it, many state schools would if given the choice, and its not hard to see why.
-
A set of educational and qualification standards across an entire country? Why not? Don't you have such a thing in the USA? Then how do you assess that school children are performing unless there is some kind of standard.
A "standard" and a "curriculum" are two different things. To say that a student must read at a certain proficiency or perform math at a certain proficiency would be a standard. Determining which books that child must read in his path to attain that proficiency would be a curriculum.