Scientists, What Scientists?

Following some responses I received from my comment about the lack of ’science’ in GCSE science (end of this post), I thought I’d devote a post to it, and with my return to school coming tomorrow, now seemed like a good idea.

Firstly, I would like to comment on a program my school operates for kids from years 8 and 9 (second and third years of high school aged 12-14), which allows them to take a single award GCSE in science one or two years early. Those that take this up are then usually offered a triple award science in years 10/11 (the actual GCSE years).

Now, I’m all for ‘gifted’ children being given a chance to shine and show off how astoundingly wonderful they are. But I question the ability of kids who should be training for their SATs being able to learn information to be used for SAT and GCSE level, and obtain a pass level in both.

I’ve been through both, and GCSE level knowledge is far more advanced than that of SAT, and GCSE level answers are probably unlikely to be given justice in SAT papers. However the main aim here was that of the actual use of a current science GCSE.

When I did science I was taught various things about electrons, photosynthesis, different chemical compounds, the universe and other things that are quite undeniably about science. However, how can someone in a GCSE paper be expected to explain the Big Bang theory for two marks. TWO. That would be two facts, possibly one very well developed point. The thought of explaining the Big Bang in 2/3 lines probably shocks physicists, Simon Singh managed to write quite a large book (544 pages) on the theory and why you should know it (It is a very good read, here it is on Amazon). OK, I don’t expect GCSE students to know the theory to the extent of Simon Sing, 544 pages on a GCSE paper may well be excessive, but please, two marks?

Further, what part does advising a business on the use of ‘green energy’ play in science? The workings of a wind driven motor providing electricity may qualify, but ‘green’ issues are not science. If scientists agreed that global warming was caused by humans, then maybe, but it would appear that as an issue that only politicians seem to agree on, it is not science.

In the same respect that medical ethics should not be brought into science lessons. I remember a member of my science class once asking the teacher why we were being asked about the rights and wrongs of abortion. The answer was not ‘because it is a question of whether science should advance in that field’ but ‘because it’s on the syllabus’.

Why is science turning into less science and more ethics and politics? could it be the lack of scientifically trained people? Surely the lack of scientific education will fail to help that situation. I know a few kids that are actually, genuinely interested in science, and they would benefit from more science than is available.

It is very sad to mourn the loss of the real science GCSE this year, and hopefully it will return. First project, build a working lightsaber.

MTFBWY