""David G. Bell"" wrote in message
.. .
On Friday, in article
"Jim Webster" wrote:



Arts degrees in the not so distant past did prove a certain
accomplishment in the ability to think; to research a problem and find,
present, and judge the possible answers. My own recollection is that
there was a shift in what was expected at different stages in the
system. O-level was about knowing the book solutions, whether science
or arts. A-level began to bring in the problem of picking the right
approach from several choices. And I am not at all sure that anyone
could have blathered their way through a decent Arts degree. The
blather would at least have had to be a properly-written essay. rather
than the near-stream-of-consciousness which fills the modern media.

Having said that, and while still wondering if enough was done at my
school to teach the skills of structuring an essay, it is perhaps
possible to pick up a lot of the skills of an Arts graduate by some sort
of osmosis. Read the good stuff, whether Gibbon or Pratchett.

And anyone who thinks that there is nothing about writing which cannot
be learnt from Terry Pratchett's work probably hasn't noticed how it
floats in a sea of literary reference.

At its best the arts degree did teach the student how to write and structure
an intelligent and readable essay and gave a clarity of thought. It is
probable that there are still courses out there that do it, but when you
look at what is produced at times then we might as well stick them all in
historical philosophism courses at wallaballoo university and have done with
it.

Jim Webster

Dennis G. writes

Oz quoted

The Ministry of Defence has had to offer remedial maths for applicants
with a "C" (middle grade) in GCSE (age 15) maths because they found they
were often baffled by fractions.

Coventry University's tests have shown that a "B" grade in "A" level
maths is about the same or worse than an "N" (fail) in 1991.

This particular whinge has the longest legs in history. Every generation finds a
reason to complain that they had a much better education than the current crop
of students.

Sometimes this is true, and sometimes false.
In this case some evidence is given.

the belief kept the teaching of Latin as a living language alive
until long after the last Roman Emperor's final bacchanal.

That was primarily because it continued as a lingua franca for
centuries, particularly in universities which were derived from a Roman
Catholic basis.

So science moves forward with nanotech, wi-fi, genome analysis, cloning the
bauteng, creating new materials and rightly ignores the critics.

Let's take a small example. In my day (60's) calculus was expected if
you were to achieve one of the higher A level grades in physics. No
longer.

When a test or experiment fails to represent reality, it is the testing that
must change.

Ah, you mean if the evidence disagrees with your view it must be
destroyed.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Oz wrote:

(...)

When a test or experiment fails to represent reality, it is the testing that
must change.

Ah, you mean if the evidence disagrees with your view it must be
destroyed.

Other way round. If your view disagrees with the evidence, your view must
change.

The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or superior to
anything in the past is everywhere.

Dennis

Hello Oz,

I also am of the 60's era and without calculus pursued a very rewarding
engineering career. Today I see students quite intent on the study of
calculus. Most seem to be first and second year university students working
toward mechanical and electrical/electronics fields.

To what end are they working? Do you mean calculus is not necessary or that
it has been surpassed by another form of mathematics?

Thank You

Jim Curts


"Oz" wrote in message
...
Dennis G. writes

Oz quoted

The Ministry of Defence has had to offer remedial maths for applicants
with a "C" (middle grade) in GCSE (age 15) maths because they found they
were often baffled by fractions.

Coventry University's tests have shown that a "B" grade in "A" level
maths is about the same or worse than an "N" (fail) in 1991.

This particular whinge has the longest legs in history. Every generation
finds a
reason to complain that they had a much better education than the current
crop
of students.

Sometimes this is true, and sometimes false.
In this case some evidence is given.

the belief kept the teaching of Latin as a living language alive
until long after the last Roman Emperor's final bacchanal.

That was primarily because it continued as a lingua franca for
centuries, particularly in universities which were derived from a Roman
Catholic basis.

So science moves forward with nanotech, wi-fi, genome analysis, cloning
the
bauteng, creating new materials and rightly ignores the critics.

Let's take a small example. In my day (60's) calculus was expected if
you were to achieve one of the higher A level grades in physics. No
longer.

When a test or experiment fails to represent reality, it is the testing
that
must change.

Ah, you mean if the evidence disagrees with your view it must be
destroyed.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"James Curts" wrote in message
news:TN3oa.519103$L1.151448@sccrnsc02...
Hello Oz,

I also am of the 60's era and without calculus pursued a very rewarding
engineering career. Today I see students quite intent on the study of
calculus. Most seem to be first and second year university students
working
toward mechanical and electrical/electronics fields.

To what end are they working? Do you mean calculus is not necessary or
that
it has been surpassed by another form of mathematics?

I think the point that Oz is driving at is that in the UK students were
introduced to Calculus at the age of 14 as part of O level. You couldn't get
into university to do maths or physics without a knowledge of calculus.
At the old O level my wife did 8 o levels and get two As... This was
considered exceptional
Under the comparatively new GCSE which replaced O level they have had such
bad grade inflation that they have had to institute the grade A+ because it
is common for students to get all A grades

Jim Webster

Dennis G. writes
Oz wrote:

(...)

When a test or experiment fails to represent reality, it is the testing that
must change.

Ah, you mean if the evidence disagrees with your view it must be
destroyed.

Other way round. If your view disagrees with the evidence, your view must
change.

The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or superior to
anything in the past is everywhere.

Indeed but what has that to do with the standard of school science
teachers?

That has more to do with the calibre of the small number doing science
PhD's and even more to do with the quality of postdocs.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

James Curts writes

I also am of the 60's era and without calculus pursued a very rewarding
engineering career.

In what area, and which degree did you take?

Today I see students quite intent on the study of
calculus. Most seem to be first and second year university students working
toward mechanical and electrical/electronics fields.

To what end are they working? Do you mean calculus is not necessary or that
it has been surpassed by another form of mathematics?

Eh?

You have quite missed my point.

Elementary calculus is necessary and hasn't been conveniently surpassed
by another form of mathematics. It is, after all, 300 year old
mathematics. It's not rocket science.

Because elementary calculus is no longer a requirement for A level
science, those areas that need it have been removed and replaced by
descriptive rote learning modules (largely devoid of understanding).

I'm not at all surprised that first year university science students
would have to start learning calculus, but on the whole it would have
been much better had they started learning it at school.

At the elementary level it's not after all very difficult.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Jim Webster writes

I think the point that Oz is driving at is that in the UK students were
introduced to Calculus at the age of 14 as part of O level.

I'm not sure that was ever true. It would typically have been taught to
the better math and science pupils at about aged 14, but usually as what
we would now call an AS level, called something like "Additional maths".

Hmm, but that was classed an "O" level, I admit.

You couldn't get
into university to do maths or physics without a knowledge of calculus.

Actually you couldn't do "A" level without some basic knowledge,
although this could be (and was) taught as part of the science subject.

At the old O level my wife did 8 o levels and get two As... This was
considered exceptional

Indeed so.

Under the comparatively new GCSE which replaced O level they have had such
bad grade inflation that they have had to institute the grade A+ because it
is common for students to get all A grades

The really good ones will get 10+ A* (spit).

Actually there is a subtle reversal of grade inflation.

The actual module marks are now given, and taken into account by
universities, particularly those with heavily oversubscribed courses. So
the general angst about pupils with four A's not getting in is a bit of
a red herring. Some courses (in both arts and sciences) may have two or
three times the applicants for the number of places ALL with four A's.

Clearly lots with 'good enough grades' must fail to get in.
The selection (if done rationally) must take into account the actual
marks achieved as well as making allowances for the calibre of school
the applicant comes from. This year, with many independents *not* taking
some or any "AS" levels, it was inevitable that there would be some
confusion.



--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Oz wrote:

(...)
The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or superior to
anything in the past is everywhere.

Indeed but what has that to do with the standard of school science
teachers?

That has more to do with the calibre of the small number doing science
PhD's and even more to do with the quality of postdocs.

It is only important if you are measuring outcomes rather than methodology.

Dennis

Dennis G. writes
Oz wrote:

(...)
The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or superior
to
anything in the past is everywhere.

Indeed but what has that to do with the standard of school science
teachers?

That has more to do with the calibre of the small number doing science
PhD's and even more to do with the quality of postdocs.

It is only important if you are measuring outcomes rather than methodology.

What is?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Oz wrote:

Dennis G. writes
Oz wrote:

(...)
The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or superior
to
anything in the past is everywhere.

Indeed but what has that to do with the standard of school science
teachers?

That has more to do with the calibre of the small number doing science
PhD's and even more to do with the quality of postdocs.

It is only important if you are measuring outcomes rather than methodology.

What is?

============
The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or superior
to
anything in the past is everywhere.

"Dennis G." wrote in message
...
Oz wrote:

Dennis G. writes
Oz wrote:

(...)
The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or
superior
to
anything in the past is everywhere.

Indeed but what has that to do with the standard of school science
teachers?

That has more to do with the calibre of the small number doing science
PhD's and even more to do with the quality of postdocs.

It is only important if you are measuring outcomes rather than
methodology.

What is?

============
The evidence that Science is being performed at a level matching or
superior
to
anything in the past is everywhere.

remember that science can be performed to a level matching or exceeding the
past, but within one nation state you can have a shortage of people capable
of maintaining it. If the North American continent kept up the standards of
scientific education, then the UK would still see scientific advances and
its best people would still be able to keep up and would probably move for
the enhanced education and training.
As it is we are seeing in the UK a decreasing proportion of people with a
decent scientific education

Jim Webster

Jim Webster writes
remember that science can be performed to a level matching or exceeding the
past, but within one nation state you can have a shortage of people capable
of maintaining it. If the North American continent kept up the standards of
scientific education, then the UK would still see scientific advances and
its best people would still be able to keep up and would probably move for
the enhanced education and training.
As it is we are seeing in the UK a decreasing proportion of people with a
decent scientific education

Mind you it is a moot point how many technocrats we actually need.
Very, very, few end up doing research. Most end up in industry (and
there is not much of that left), often as a glorified maintenance man
(nothing wrong with that) and only rarely actually designing something.

Even more go into management or 'financial services'. Pretty lucrative
and often interesting. Some into teaching, even fewer as a vocation.

It's worth remembering that in the 60's only about 2% of the children
leaving school went to university and well under half of those did
sciences. Many of those went into teaching and a tiny number into
academia.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes
remember that science can be performed to a level matching or exceeding
the
past, but within one nation state you can have a shortage of people
capable
of maintaining it. If the North American continent kept up the standards
of
scientific education, then the UK would still see scientific advances and
its best people would still be able to keep up and would probably move
for
the enhanced education and training.
As it is we are seeing in the UK a decreasing proportion of people with a
decent scientific education

Mind you it is a moot point how many technocrats we actually need.
Very, very, few end up doing research. Most end up in industry (and
there is not much of that left), often as a glorified maintenance man
(nothing wrong with that) and only rarely actually designing something.

Even more go into management or 'financial services'. Pretty lucrative
and often interesting. Some into teaching, even fewer as a vocation.

It's worth remembering that in the 60's only about 2% of the children
leaving school went to university and well under half of those did
sciences. Many of those went into teaching and a tiny number into
academia.

If teaching over there is anything like it is over here your the bright
graduates aren't going into teaching. The pay is poor, the work demanding,
the parental support lousy and the administration support worse. My wife is
working for a third less a year so she doesn't have to teach. She taught at
a school that was pretty good by US standards and the schools here are some
of the best in the country. She would rather work at lower stress job for
less money and enjoy what she does instead of trying to keep order in a room
full of kid and no time to pee.

Forty years ago teaching was one of the better careers a woman could have.
The first pay check my wife drew was the biggest one she ever got when
adjusted for inflation. Women have a lot more choices today than they had
then and we are reaching a lot deeper in the barrel to come up with
teachers.

Gordon

"Oz" wrote in message
...
James Curts writes

I also am of the 60's era and without calculus pursued a very rewarding
engineering career.

In what area, and which degree did you take?

Today I see students quite intent on the study of
calculus. Most seem to be first and second year university students
working
toward mechanical and electrical/electronics fields.

To what end are they working? Do you mean calculus is not necessary or
that
it has been surpassed by another form of mathematics?

Eh?

You have quite missed my point.

Elementary calculus is necessary and hasn't been conveniently surpassed
by another form of mathematics. It is, after all, 300 year old
mathematics. It's not rocket science.

Because elementary calculus is no longer a requirement for A level
science, those areas that need it have been removed and replaced by
descriptive rote learning modules (largely devoid of understanding).

I'm not at all surprised that first year university science students
would have to start learning calculus, but on the whole it would have
been much better had they started learning it at school.

At the elementary level it's not after all very difficult.

Computers do away with the need for some calculus. You can just work it out
the long way. One engineer was trying to find the volume of a stream
profiles at different levels with a computer program. That is a classic area
under a curve problem and she couldn't covert it to code. Since the data was
on a X, Y data it was all straight lines. Each section of the stream could
just be solve using the area of a triangle added to the are of he rectangle
above it. When summed up in a recursive function it took about a half page
of code and a hour to show her how to do it.

I doubt she understood recursion but she did get the point about simplifying
the problem.

For an engineer anything difficult enough to require calculus has a look up
table anyway

In 8 years of solving problems for engineers I never used calculus once.
Maybe they could solve the ones that needed calculus and just brought me the
hard ones.

Gordon