Login |
New User
Books
COMING SEPT 09!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
CBI wants more pupils in science
by BBC News
Thanks to Jonathan Smith for the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7553040.stm
CBI wants more pupils in science
British business leaders want all brighter teenagers to take three separate science subjects in secondary school.
The Confederation of British Industry wants separate sciences to be the norm, rather than combined science.
England's education ministers say those who do well in tests will now have an entitlement to separate sciences.
In Scotland, a science baccalaureate is being introduced to try to boost pupils' science knowledge.
The move in Scotland comes after the annual survey of achievement - focused on science in 2007 - suggested primary pupils were not reaching the expected standard.
The CBI says there are not enough young scientists to meet the needs of industry.
Its report talks of the need to strengthen science in the UK - though it refers entirely to the education system in England.
'Not forced'
In England the government has promised that from September students getting Level 6 or above in their science national curriculum tests, aged 14, will be "entitled" to study triple science.
Under the CBI's proposal, they would automatically be opted in to triple science GCSEs.
"Students would be encouraged to broaden their science education - but would not be forced to do so," the CBI said.
"The choice to opt out and take double science would remain."
It said the policy would affect some 250,000 14-year-olds a year in England.
A likely problem would be the shortage of specialist teachers - highlighted in a report from the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham.
Another CBI idea is to offer bursaries of £1,000 a year to science, technology, engineering and maths graduates to help pay university tuition fees, which apply in England and in Northern Ireland.
It said this would cost about £200m a year but would "reflect the importance of these skills to the UK economy".
'Fascinating career'
CBI director-general Richard Lambert said: "Young people are missing out. They are doing better than ever in science tests at 14, but hardly any are going on to study triple science GCSE, despite the opportunities and learning it offers.
"We need to create an environment in schools that reflects the importance of science, and the value of studying it.
"We also need to send an unambiguous message to young people who are good at science that science as a career can be fascinating and worthwhile, and will reward you well."
He said scientists were needed to work on projects such as the £16bn London Crossrail scheme and a potential new generation of nuclear power stations.
"The question is whether our fellow citizens will do more than just pour concrete," he said.
England's Schools Minister, Jim Knight, said increasing the number of young people choosing to study science into higher education was "a top priority" but the government did not agree with the automatic opt-in.
It was working hard to increase the number of specialist physics and chemistry teachers.
"We also announced today the new group of experts who will help us to develop the science Diploma which will help prepare students for both further study and a scientific career."
This is one of the new Diplomas in academic subjects - which the CBI opposes.
Mr Knight said the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was co-ordinating a study of the demand for science, technology, engineering and maths skills from all employers, to be published in October 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7553040.stm
CBI wants more pupils in science
British business leaders want all brighter teenagers to take three separate science subjects in secondary school.
The Confederation of British Industry wants separate sciences to be the norm, rather than combined science.
England's education ministers say those who do well in tests will now have an entitlement to separate sciences.
In Scotland, a science baccalaureate is being introduced to try to boost pupils' science knowledge.
The move in Scotland comes after the annual survey of achievement - focused on science in 2007 - suggested primary pupils were not reaching the expected standard.
The CBI says there are not enough young scientists to meet the needs of industry.
Its report talks of the need to strengthen science in the UK - though it refers entirely to the education system in England.
'Not forced'
In England the government has promised that from September students getting Level 6 or above in their science national curriculum tests, aged 14, will be "entitled" to study triple science.
Under the CBI's proposal, they would automatically be opted in to triple science GCSEs.
"Students would be encouraged to broaden their science education - but would not be forced to do so," the CBI said.
"The choice to opt out and take double science would remain."
It said the policy would affect some 250,000 14-year-olds a year in England.
A likely problem would be the shortage of specialist teachers - highlighted in a report from the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham.
Another CBI idea is to offer bursaries of £1,000 a year to science, technology, engineering and maths graduates to help pay university tuition fees, which apply in England and in Northern Ireland.
It said this would cost about £200m a year but would "reflect the importance of these skills to the UK economy".
'Fascinating career'
CBI director-general Richard Lambert said: "Young people are missing out. They are doing better than ever in science tests at 14, but hardly any are going on to study triple science GCSE, despite the opportunities and learning it offers.
"We need to create an environment in schools that reflects the importance of science, and the value of studying it.
"We also need to send an unambiguous message to young people who are good at science that science as a career can be fascinating and worthwhile, and will reward you well."
He said scientists were needed to work on projects such as the £16bn London Crossrail scheme and a potential new generation of nuclear power stations.
"The question is whether our fellow citizens will do more than just pour concrete," he said.
England's Schools Minister, Jim Knight, said increasing the number of young people choosing to study science into higher education was "a top priority" but the government did not agree with the automatic opt-in.
It was working hard to increase the number of specialist physics and chemistry teachers.
"We also announced today the new group of experts who will help us to develop the science Diploma which will help prepare students for both further study and a scientific career."
This is one of the new Diplomas in academic subjects - which the CBI opposes.
Mr Knight said the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was co-ordinating a study of the demand for science, technology, engineering and maths skills from all employers, to be published in October 2008.
Comments 1 - 50 of 89 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #228242 by Goldy on August 11, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Guess that's why they invented google... ;-) Other Comments by Goldy
3. Comment #228246 by NewEnglandBob on August 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Who invented Google? The CBI? ;) Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
4. Comment #228248 by Goldy on August 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Heheheheh! Actually, I had to use Google to work out what level 6 is myslef. Seems to be a different system in place from the one I used when I was a schoolboy.
Isn't bursary also an American English word? I do seem to recall there was a ships bursar on the Love Boat (or whatever that series was called - liner with people all getting off with each other...). No, I didn't watch it...ummm, it just happened to be on at the time....only watched it once! ;-)
Other Comments by Goldy
5. Comment #228251 by debaser71 on August 11, 2008 at 4:52 pm
All those weird British ABCism's. Anyway here in NY we start with earth science, then biology, then chemistry, then physics.Other Comments by debaser71
6. Comment #228254 by Goldy on August 11, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Debaser...then do you go on to creation sciences after that? ;-)
*runs swiftly in the direction of away...*
Other Comments by Goldy
7. Comment #228255 by phil rimmer on August 11, 2008 at 4:57 pm
debaser71All those weird British ABCism's. Anyway here in NY we start with earth science, then biology, then chemistry, then physics.
In the UK we start by learning our TLAs.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
8. Comment #228257 by mordacious1 on August 11, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I think there should be an "inane" tax on TV shows. For every minute, of say, "Who wants to be a supermodel", the station has to pay $10 to support science and math education. Since most TV shows are stupid, this could be a windfall. To avoid the tax, the station could show something worthwhile. Win/win. Other Comments by mordacious1
9. Comment #228264 by NewEnglandBob on August 11, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I think there should be an "inane" tax on TV shows. For every minute, of say, "Who wants to be a supermodel", the station has to pay $10 to support science and math education. Since most TV shows are stupid, this could be a windfall. To avoid the tax, the station could show something worthwhile. Win/win.
Don't get me started on the US 'reality' shows! Who the hell wants to watch a show about others losing weight??? Next there will be a show on watching paint dry - 5 episodes each week....Monday: Red; Tuesday: Orange.... Next week -tune in for pastels followed by off-whites!
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
10. Comment #228284 by Dhamma on August 11, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Who the hell wants to watch a show about others losing weight???
Apparently shitloads!
Having spent the evening with a complete nutcase, I will once again ask Richard Dawkins to buy an island for everyone at RD.net.
Other Comments by Dhamma
11. Comment #228286 by thewhitepearl on August 11, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Dhamma,
Good Evening! (night, er whatever).
A complete nutcase? Do tell...
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
12. Comment #228293 by Dhamma on August 11, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Pearl:Good evening yourself! (it's pretty late in the night here).
It was nothing really, just a male "friend" who thinks it's an appropriate behaviour to toss a hotdog on the wall. On MY wall, that is.
Everyone's a result of the evolution - He's a result of god!
How's everything?
Other Comments by Dhamma
13. Comment #228295 by thewhitepearl on August 11, 2008 at 7:04 pm
What someone wasting food????
Nu-uh, they will be introduced to the power of my cricket bat.
Oh wait-god made him? That explains it....
Good, good what about you? Drink away your pain the other night?
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
14. Comment #228298 by Goldy on August 11, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Dhamma
It was nothing really, just a male "friend" who thinks it's an appropriate behaviour to toss a hotdog on the wall. On MY wall, that is.
Everyone's a result of the evolution - He's a result of god!
Or maybe a result of one of those rare interbreedings....?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2965,Neanderthal-DNA-Shows-They-Rarely-Interbred-With-Us-Very-Different-Humans,Discover-Magazine
Other Comments by Goldy
15. Comment #228299 by Dhamma on August 11, 2008 at 7:17 pm
By all means, he can waste his food... just not on my wall! Ah, cricket lady at my service! Thanks :)
What a stupid idea I had that night... So pointless :) Water didn't help much, I'm afraid.
(Having seen you're dogs for a while, I've come to appreciate them more.. cute little things!)
Other Comments by Dhamma
16. Comment #228302 by Dhamma on August 11, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Gee, reading my own text I get a headache. I really have NO flow at all :) Maybe I'm the interbred neanderthal! Goldy: Nah, only god can have produced a moron of that magnitude!
Other Comments by Dhamma
17. Comment #228304 by Layla Nasreddin on August 11, 2008 at 7:31 pm
NewEnglandBob wrote:
Too may 'British-isms' in the article for an American to understand it. I do not know what a 'Level 6' or a 'GCSE' or 'bursaries' represents.
Pfft...what's so hard to understand? If I, an ignorant Yank, can "get" it, surely you can, too! ;-)
My fave British-ism used in the article, though, is the use of the word "scheme" when referring to some government or business plan. In America, "scheme" has a devious, dishonest connotation, so a Yank might wonder what secret, dishonest shenanigans are going on with that "£16bn London Crossrail scheme". (So might a Brit, for that matter...)
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
18. Comment #228307 by Goldy on August 11, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Layla, I believe MPs in the UK are also referrred to as scheming (as well as self indulgent conniving puffed up shit bags...) Other Comments by Goldy
19. Comment #228308 by Ishruul on August 11, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Why!!! Oh, why!!! I have a sudden urge to drink tea reading that British propaganda!!!
He, he...I got to see London one of these days, just for the slang ;)
Other Comments by Ishruul
20. Comment #228311 by nervouswreck on August 11, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Any additional opportunity any school child can get with a science class, more power!
My Junior year in high school I was able to take two science classes, chemisty and zoology. Which was great because my sophomore year I took what was called "Biology II" with an ordained baptist minister/football coach. What a blow off class that was. I did learn, but not what I wanted. I think that the more science classes students can have access too, all the better.
The science teacher I had my freshman, junior and senior (physics-senior) years taught me more than I could ever hope for. He was an inspiration for me and provided me the best basics for college classes that I could wish.
He died last month. I just want to give deepest respect for a high school science teacher that everyone here would love. Mr. Daniels...Thank You!
Other Comments by nervouswreck
21. Comment #228312 by Goldy on August 11, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Comment #228308 by Ishruul
Tea? Bitter, my man. And by the Imperial pint. And why go to London - there's Leeds, Shaffield, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham, Oxford, Ipswich, Great Yarmouth......
You'll get more than slang, you'll get actual dialect!
Other Comments by Goldy
22. Comment #228315 by mordacious1 on August 11, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Look at the bright side of life...
1. You weren't at home alone, though it might have made being at home alone look damn good.
2. There are worse places that he could toss his hot dog.
Other Comments by mordacious1
23. Comment #228326 by thewhitepearl on August 11, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Dhamma,
Anytime. Always looking for an excuse to whack a weetard.
Crick and Mendel cute little things? BAAAH! I take pride in their ugly genetic inheritance. But if you want to see more of the little boogers you have to send Mordy your tithe check
And don't be to hard on yourself, I'm sure quite a handful of us have stayed at home by ourselves with the intent of getting a bit saucy. I don't know how many of us are guilty of drinking and posting though... :)
[edit]
Don't let the Teratornis Police catch you though. He WILL issue a citation
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
24. Comment #228334 by LeeC on August 11, 2008 at 11:17 pm
About bloody time... I was forced to do 'combined science' (one of the first school years to do so in my area all those many moons ago) -which involved very little from each of the 3 sciences.When I went on to do my A-levels - the sciences were spilt into separate subjects again and we found that the first 3 months we were playing catch up because we learnt so little when they were combined.
So how many years did it take to see what the freaking problem was?
Oh and I like these comments from the article...
"A likely problem would be the shortage of specialist teachers...
It was working hard to increase the number of specialist physics and chemistry teachers."
Well, the government should not force people who have a physics degree to teach biology in school and you might find more people willing to teach physics :)
All these years and I am still bitter - I wonder if the system is any better in Australia? I'm probably too old now... (and bitter)
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
25. Comment #228353 by Dadeolus on August 12, 2008 at 12:33 am
My problem with this is that it fails to take into account what the vast majority need/want. As a science teacher, I thought we already emphasise the importance of science at school. Kids already take twice as many GCSEs in science as any other GCSE (apart from English/English literature which really is two subjects and so doesn't count). This already causes much resentment (from other subject teachers and the students). Forcing that up to three times as many will actually have the opposite effect to the intended. Imagine being forced to do something you are rubbish at and hate for an hour every day. That's what most kids are currently doing. An extra GCSE would mean five more lessons a fortnight on top of that!To take it even further, your "average" kid who isn't going onto study science beyond GCSE has finally been given a useful, relevant and interesting GCSE in the form of applied science. This is completely different to the science taught in separate sciences. For instance, why would a kid who wants to be an electrician/hair dresser/mechanic/shop assistant/in the armed forces need to know how to carry out a titration? For that matter, what if the intelligent kids don't like science? Put yourself in the place of an intelligent kid who dislikes science: "So, you're telling me that if I get a level 6 or 7, I will be forced to endure 15 hours a fortnight of a subject I hate. However, if I get a level 5, I could choose single science and only do 5 hours a fortnight? Well, I won't try at all and I'll get a level five then!" I know children who would definitely do this, they have told me so.
I get fed-up of people who have no real connection with the kids who are taking these courses putting their tuppence worth in on what THEY think should be taught.
I took combined science (which, despite popular belief, was chemistry, physics and biology spread over two GCSEs, again meaning more time on science than any other subject) and I am a doctor of chemistry. So even those going onto the highest levels don't NEED three GCSEs in science! Two years ago, three hundred children in year 11 (GCSE year) were taught what the mole is and how to calculate reacting masses in chemical reactions. This year, three of those kids finished A level chemistry. That's one percent. Not one of them is going onto a degree in which they will use this knowledge. So even those who are going onto higher levels in science don't need to know all the stuff they are taught!
Other Comments by Dadeolus
26. Comment #228370 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 1:08 am
Hmmm?! I guess the CBI should come up with a promotional slogan, such as "Science isn't Boring"
20% Science might emphasise the importance of science in school, but the value of science isn't promoted in the home, nor many other places outside of school. It's not that cool to be a geek. There aren't many scientists driving fast cars and turning up stoned to the best parties.
When the top, best-paid jobs go to people with Science degrees then western kids might battle to do well in science subjects. As it is, successful people (entrepeneurs?) don't need science qualifications. They use technology and only occasionally look for advice from a "techy". It's only when the businesses cannot find the "techy", that they didn't want before and never nurtured, that they complain that the schools aren't giving them what they want. And then the whole technology thing is sent over to China.
I think if I was 13 years old now, in the UK, there wouldn't be too many reasons that would drive me to do well at science. And having been a crap science teacher myself for a couple of years I know only too well how difficult it really is to truly inspire and teach high-schoolers anything. The only ones that did well did so "in-spite" of my efforts :-(
Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus
27. Comment #228371 by hungarianelephant on August 12, 2008 at 1:19 am
Maybe we wouldn't need triple science teaching if there was enough teaching of science in the double-subject. This might include the ... er ... scientific method. It is appalling that you can get a couple of A grades without being able to give a coherent description of the way science works.Perhaps if we tried to get the students to think about designing their own experiments, rather than doing useless stuff like tracing the lines of the iron filings over a magnet, they might engage with it a little more.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
28. Comment #228381 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 1:46 am
hungarianelephant,
That's an excellent point, but I'm afraid that there are few new ideas about and that one has already been tried many times. The science I taught had exactly that emphasis. Students asked questions, were encouraged to come up with their own possible answers / hypotheses, designed experiments to help answer the questions ... etc. ...
The trick is to inspire them to actually give a damn in the first place. And at the end of 3 years the students didn't neccessarily know enough to really study advanced level science.
It's often the actual teacher that turns the students on to a subject. My teacher did fantastic demonstrations. It was entertaining and I discovered I was quite good at science, so I stuck with it. At the end I was taught some facts and ideas and some tricks of scientific method. The method of teaching you propose only really works if the students are hungry to get these things for themselves
Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus
29. Comment #228392 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 2:26 am
On the whole, I would prefer more science in pupils. Other Comments by irate_atheist
30. Comment #228403 by Dadeolus on August 12, 2008 at 2:52 am
Hungarianelephant, the new GCSEs in science which was rolled out from two years ago and the new key stage 3 curriculum rolled out from september this year has a massive section called "how science works". We teach children how to plan experiments etc and more importantly, how to look at evidence and make up their own minds. This has been fantastic as it works very well at teaching kids how to look at "MMR causes autism" type claims and see them for the bunk that they are. The kids who were taught this have only just finished their GCSEs, so it might be an idea if people like the CBI and the government actually give changes they've asked for/made a chance to work their way through to higher education and the workplace before deciding what needs changing!Edit:
Many of the comments I've seen on here and heard elsewhere (especially the BBC reporters, grrrr!) really say to me that people comment on education based on what they went through, not based on what is actually happening. Add to that the fact that a person's impression of the education system is based upon a teenagers perception (which is very self-centred and distorted by time) and the reality is very different to the perception.
Other Comments by Dadeolus
31. Comment #228417 by King of NH on August 12, 2008 at 3:22 am
I just hope that the arts are not neglected in the push for science. Then again, the arts have already slid with the "don't hurt their fragile feelings" push. I hate to say it (not really) but 99% of you... Your kid's drawing is crap and his/her grammar is only slighly better than a drunken bonobo's. But back to the sciences.
I agree with Dawkins. So long as we have people in our society squashing science (I'm looking at you, Hamm, Comfort, and Ratzinger) we will have young people that steer away. If the government is serious about encouraging science, it will stop encouraging these fools.
Other Comments by King of NH
32. Comment #228436 by hungarianelephant on August 12, 2008 at 3:47 am
Dadeolus - Thanks for your response. I'm delighted to hear that at least some attempt is being made. When my sister took her GCSEs two years ago, there seemed to be much change but little improvement on the content of GCSEs 20 years ago. It's excellent news that changes are being made. Do you know where these plans originated?ColdFusionLazarus -
The trick is to inspire them to actually give a damn in the first place. And at the end of 3 years the students didn't neccessarily know enough to really study advanced level science.
Oh yes. But I'd take the long view. Most people's encounters with "science" consist of apparently pointless and smelly experiments in school, an 8-minute consultation with the doctor who fobs you off with a prescription, and endless stories in the press telling us that everything we enjoy is bad for us, and that what they told us two weeks ago is now out of date. This is perceived as "science" and it creates very negative views.
If people actually left school with even an inkling of why they did science, what it is and how it works, they might end up with a different perception of it, as well as having more ability to deal with BS, such as the furore over MMR that Dadeolus mentions. I'd like to think that this would help to create a culture more favourable to science and scientists. Even if it didn't, it's difficult to see the downside.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
33. Comment #228467 by bobsully on August 12, 2008 at 4:40 am
I should start watching television again so I know what the hell everyone is talking about. Then again... Other Comments by bobsully
34. Comment #228476 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 5:12 am
hungarianelephant
Absolutely agree with the theory, but there is nothing in the curriculum today that hasn't been tried before. Nuffield science courses have been around for a very long time. "Active Science" and teaching the "scientific method" is not new at all. The need for a "Fair Test" has been pushed down students throats for at least the last 20 years (and quite right too). Some teachers can still teach good science even within a bad curriculum, and some teachers can do a lousy job in what looks like a good curriculum. But ultimately, science isn't "cool" like it was 100 years ago. And so you think you can try and get the students thinking about important issues, such as our effects on the environment, but some of them are just going to struggle to come up with their own questions, and once they have a question, some are going to struggle to hypothesise and test. Some smart students are going to "google" around the area and may be to be too lazy (not totally a bad thing) to want to come up with the experiments. Others are just going to be bored with their own idea of wrapping different insulating materials around beakers of warm water, and may feel that their small experiments have nothing to do with real science. I shouldn't be so negative, but to believe that science education has taken a great leap forward in the last few years would be wrong.
Part of the difficulty with any education is that the students already "know" stuff. What they think they know may feel good to them, but it could be wrong, and you just can't overlay the new ideas over their old ideas. It's a bit like some of the religious commenters on this site. You think you've told them something important and that they will say, "Gosh, you're right. How could I have been so foolish", but it's not so easy to break their cherished belief systems. Getting students to interact with their environment in a scientific manner is the way forward. But just saying it doesn't make it happen.
Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus
35. Comment #228494 by The Schuermannator on August 12, 2008 at 5:38 am
I want more retinas in science, followed by more corneas!!! Pupils always get so much credit. =( Other Comments by The Schuermannator
36. Comment #228526 by debaser71 on August 12, 2008 at 6:56 am
I was actually taught about creationism in AP Biology(Advanced Placement, college level like BIO 101 102 labs) which did come after physics. So YES! But what my teacher did was he basically put up page on the projector (we call them transparencies) that listed some creationst claim and then why they are bunk. This was in 1989 which (IIRC) is one year after the US Supreme Court dissallowed creation to be taught in public schools as science.Anyway I feel as though I received a great public school education. And so far I am happy with my daughters' public school.
Other Comments by debaser71
37. Comment #228533 by hungarianelephant on August 12, 2008 at 7:09 am
ColdFusionLazarus -Good post. So much depends on the teacher in any subject.
I'm speaking from a personal perspective / n=1 sample, but I somehow came through science classes, up to and including A-Level, without ever encountering a description of the scientific method. Or even more than a passing reference to great scientists and how they went about their work. And that was with good teachers.
One lesson that did stick was an experiment to determine the gravitational constant by putting weights on a spring. The class was split into groups to do this experiment. Every group but one dutifully reported the answer as "10"; one (mine) said it was "9.8" and was roundly mocked by the rest of the class - at least until the correct result was announced.
The point of this story is that we had been told in the previous lesson that the answer was "approximately 10". Which evidently translated into most minds as "10"; to some it was "somewhere around 10 but not 10". This was an object lesson in confirmation bias, and it has stayed with me ever since.
The postscript to the story is that three of the four in the pedants group became lawyers. Read into that what you will.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
38. Comment #228545 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 7:35 am
hungarianelephant
Ha ha! Very amusing. I think quite a few scientists have gently nudged their measurements in the direction that gives them the result they wanted. I'm sure that I too have done something similar to that (very naughty). Thank goodness for peer reviews.
Still better than the laziness of leaving any possible explanation to one side, for only the Good Lord understands such mysteries.
Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus
39. Comment #228613 by TIKI AL on August 12, 2008 at 9:30 am
New England Bob (1.): Bursaries are financial grants for students.A bursar is a financial officer of a school or college who may or may not take trips on the "Love Boat".
Supply Officer was a specialisation in the British Royal Navy which has recently been superseded by the Logistics Officer, although the function remains the same. In centuries past, the Supply Officer had been known as the Clerk, BURSAR, Purser and, later, the Paymaster.
Google makes me feel intellygent.
Other Comments by TIKI AL
40. Comment #228625 by moderndaythomas on August 12, 2008 at 9:41 am
mordacious1 Since most TV shows are stupid, this could be a windfall.
I agree. Hollywood portrays most scientists as evil, or corrupt geneticists these days messing in gods buisness.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
41. Comment #228631 by hungarianelephant on August 12, 2008 at 9:55 am
41. Comment #228625 by moderndaythomas on August 12, 2008 at 9:41 amHollywood portrays most scientists as evil, or corrupt geneticists these days messing in gods buisness.
And with English accents.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
42. Comment #228632 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 9:58 am
Comment #228631 by hungarianelephant And with English accents.
Don't forget the hunchbacked assistant, usually called Igor.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Other Comments by decius
43. Comment #228642 by Wosret on August 12, 2008 at 10:31 am
I don't need no edge-ah-mah-cation. Learnin's for fools. I'm sure England can just out-source its science, and specialist jobs. Section one of science education: Learn to comprehend thick Indian accent.
42. Comment #228631 by hungarianelephant
The Island of Doctor Popin J Bobington the third.
Other Comments by Wosret
44. Comment #228676 by Dadeolus on August 12, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hungarianelephant, I don't know who came up with the "how science works" part of the curriculum. I love teaching it and the kids seem to enjoy learning it. Mostly because they can see the point of it, unlike a lot of the stuff I have to teach!I live in nigh-on mortal fear that this "new" idea (which is similar to stuff done before, but not exactly the same) will undergo what I believe is causing a lot of the problems in education. That what we teach changes every year. I have been in education for only four years, but have had a large proportion of what I have to teach change every year so far and it will over the next three years as well. When I mentioned this to my boss, he said that something large had changed every year since he had been teaching. That is over 20 years. Teachers are never given long enough to practice a particular approach/curriculum/whatever before it is removed from the curriculum. They may well be recycled years later, but that's long enough for many teachers who did teach it to have left the profession, or to have forgotten what they did in the past to teach it.
Other Comments by Dadeolus
45. Comment #228692 by Apathy personified on August 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Well of course the CBI wants more students to do sciences - they want to build the future economy on the lucrative 'high tech' or new technology markets. Britain can not compete with the sheer manufacturing power of the US, India, China and the other large nations - so we have to find niche markets in which to try and dominate, thus ensuring that Britains economy remains as strong as possible.At the moment, there is not enough learning and too much fact memorisation in the school system as a whole, but science especially suffers from this as it gets in the way of explanation and actual understanding (i finished A levels 3 years ago - may have changed but i doubt it).
Other Comments by Apathy personified
46. Comment #228695 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 12:15 pm
TV is great. People are way to snobbish about books. Good information is good information, no matter what form it takes. Other Comments by MRA
47. Comment #228697 by Apathy personified on August 12, 2008 at 12:17 pm
MRA,Good information is good information, no matter what form it takes.
Nobody doubts that - but TV is 99% useless filth about vacuous cretins and only 1% information. (In Britain, anyway)
I'll admit, i may have slightly indulged in hyperbole there.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
48. Comment #228700 by thewhitepearl on August 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm
TV is great. People are way to snobbish about books. Good information is good information, no matter what form it takes.
Disagree. Most t.v is complete crap. Mind filth. There is a problem when well over half of the american population didn't read a single book last year.
T.V. also allows for people to be lazy. There is another problem when people would rather stay in and watch "Americas Next Top Model" instead of doing something active and useful.
And don't even get me started on the fact that more people vote for their next American Idol instead of government officials.
lazy fuck wits.
You just earned a meeting with the cricket bat. I'm a bit irate now.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
49. Comment #228701 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm
There are also way too many crap books too. Save for the God Delusion, I cannot think of a recent non-fiction book that has genuinely changed people's thinking on a large scale. Other Comments by MRA
50. Comment #228703 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Comment #228701 by MRA Books quality isn't measured by how much they influence people's thinking. You are setting up a major straw man.
Other Comments by decius
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #228240 by NewEnglandBob on August 11, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob