The (UK) Economist 19/4/3 P25

Qualifications of teachers teaching in UK percent:

Physics Chemistry Biology
Without degree 75 50 40
Without "A" level 30 15 25

Truly mind-boggling .....

NOTE for non-UK readers: These subjects are taught from age 13.
"A" levels taken aged 17 and give entry to university.
Usually about 3 "A" levels are taken.

The standard of a 'pass' at "A" level is *very* modest.
The standard of a good grade is high.

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.

--
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
...

The (UK) Economist 19/4/3 P25

Qualifications of teachers teaching in UK percent:

Physics Chemistry Biology
Without degree 75 50 40
Without "A" level 30 15 25

Truly mind-boggling .....
...

It would not surprise me greatly to hear that for those employed outside
education the figures are the inverse -

e.g. Physics: 25% without degree, Biology 60% without degree. You
actually find something like this in universities, e.g. in physics
departments few if any of the technicians will have a physics degree
whereas in biology nearly all will have. Schools are just another
employment sector that soaks up surplus graduates, and there are more
surplus biology graduates than physics graduates.

The without A level figure for Physics could be misleading as I would
expect most will have an A level in maths, similarly the biology teachers
will probably have an A level in chemistry.

Michael Saunby

On Thursday, in article
"Oz" wrote:

The (UK) Economist 19/4/3 P25

Qualifications of teachers teaching in UK percent:

Physics Chemistry Biology
Without degree 75 50 40
Without "A" level 30 15 25

Truly mind-boggling .....

NOTE for non-UK readers: These subjects are taught from age 13.
"A" levels taken aged 17 and give entry to university.
Usually about 3 "A" levels are taken.

The standard of a 'pass' at "A" level is *very* modest.
The standard of a good grade is high.

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.

I'd be very wary of the last paragraph. There's been some major changes
in the A-level system in the last very few years, brought in very
suddenly, compared to the syllabus change I experienced.




--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

David G. Bell writes

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.

I'd be very wary of the last paragraph. There's been some major changes
in the A-level system in the last very few years, brought in very
suddenly, compared to the syllabus change I experienced.

I'm fully familiar with current "A" level status.

Whilst further maths is as hard as it ever was, the standard "A" level
is much depleted in scope, and I can believe the statement above.

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

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

"Oz" wrote in message
...

The (UK) Economist 19/4/3 P25

Qualifications of teachers teaching in UK percent:

Physics Chemistry Biology
Without degree 75 50 40
Without "A" level 30 15 25

Truly mind-boggling .....
...

It would not surprise me greatly to hear that for those employed outside
education the figures are the inverse -

e.g. Physics: 25% without degree, Biology 60% without degree. You
actually find something like this in universities, e.g. in physics
departments few if any of the technicians will have a physics degree
whereas in biology nearly all will have. Schools are just another
employment sector that soaks up surplus graduates, and there are more
surplus biology graduates than physics graduates.

The without A level figure for Physics could be misleading as I would
expect most will have an A level in maths, similarly the biology teachers
will probably have an A level in chemistry.

There are very few jobs for some one with B.A. in physics. It is a real
shame. IMO all engineers should have the equivalent of a B.A. in physic in
order to understand what they do.

Gordon

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3e9f2a38_1@newsfeed...
"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...


It would not surprise me greatly to hear that for those employed outside
education the figures are the inverse -

e.g. Physics: 25% without degree, Biology 60% without degree. You
actually find something like this in universities, e.g. in physics
departments few if any of the technicians will have a physics degree
whereas in biology nearly all will have. Schools are just another
employment sector that soaks up surplus graduates, and there are more
surplus biology graduates than physics graduates.

The without A level figure for Physics could be misleading as I would
expect most will have an A level in maths, similarly the biology teachers
will probably have an A level in chemistry.

There are very few jobs for some one with B.A. in physics. It is a real
shame. IMO all engineers should have the equivalent of a B.A. in physic in
order to understand what they do.

An oft-repeated myth when I was at Uni (end of the 80's) was that 70%
of all physics graduates end up as accountants.

Perhaps a more important consideration for schools (universities are
different) is how well qualified the teachers are to teach. It goes
without saying that one needs to be all over the coursework and to
have enough background to answer commonly raised questions (and enough
honesty to say: "I don't know, but I'll find out by next lesson.").
However, teaching is an art: higher knowledge of a subject is no
guarantee that a person will have the requisite skills to impart basic
knowledge (perhaps even enthusiasm!) to schoolchildren and make it
stick. Sacrificing higher knowledge for better teaching skills is a
good trade at school level.

Mike.

Mike Hanson writes

Perhaps a more important consideration for schools (universities are
different) is how well qualified the teachers are to teach. It goes
without saying that one needs to be all over the coursework and to
have enough background to answer commonly raised questions (and enough
honesty to say: "I don't know, but I'll find out by next lesson.").

Maybe. However there are (more like ought to be) questions that are
testing for the best A level students. A teacher without adequate
grounding will not be able to answer these.

Furthermore syllabus's change over time, although admittedly from the
conceptual and mathematical to the descriptive as far as the UK is
concerned.

However, teaching is an art: higher knowledge of a subject is no
guarantee that a person will have the requisite skills to impart basic
knowledge (perhaps even enthusiasm!) to schoolchildren and make it
stick.

Of course. However it's likely that those teaching A-level without
actually getting that far themselves are unlikely to be enthusiastic and
unlikely to have the basic knowledge. In many schools (state and
independent alike) an ignorant teacher is likely to get crucified by
smarter kids. Frankly it's pretty obvious when a teacher is bullsh*tting
due to ignorance, and doesn't build confidence if they can't immediately
answer quite simple questions.

Sacrificing higher knowledge for better teaching skills is a
good trade at school level.

Of course.
None the less good teaching skills and good knowledge is required. If
you are short on one or the other you are letting the kids down.

What's even worse is that numbers of kids doing sciences/maths is
steadily declining. At university it's even more pronounced.



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

"Mike Hanson" wrote in message
om...
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3e9f2a38_1@newsfeed...
There are very few jobs for some one with B.A. in physics. It is a
real
shame. IMO all engineers should have the equivalent of a B.A. in
physic in
order to understand what they do.

An oft-repeated myth when I was at Uni (end of the 80's) was that 70%
of all physics graduates end up as accountants.

Perhaps a more important consideration for schools (universities are
different) is how well qualified the teachers are to teach. It goes
without saying that one needs to be all over the coursework and to
have enough background to answer commonly raised questions (and enough
honesty to say: "I don't know, but I'll find out by next lesson.").
However, teaching is an art: higher knowledge of a subject is no
guarantee that a person will have the requisite skills to impart basic
knowledge (perhaps even enthusiasm!) to schoolchildren and make it
stick. Sacrificing higher knowledge for better teaching skills is a
good trade at school level.

At school, i had two maths teachers - one who had scraped his A-levels,
the other with a Maths PhD. The former was the better teacher (except
right at the top for further maths) as he could understand and explain
why us pupils were struggling with a particular bit. The PhD couldn't
grasp that not everyone understood on the first telling.
--
George Dawson
Goat farmer
..

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Mike Hanson writes

Perhaps a more important consideration for schools (universities are
different) is how well qualified the teachers are to teach. It goes
without saying that one needs to be all over the coursework and to
have enough background to answer commonly raised questions (and enough
honesty to say: "I don't know, but I'll find out by next lesson.").

Maybe. However there are (more like ought to be) questions that are
testing for the best A level students. A teacher without adequate
grounding will not be able to answer these.

I don't know about your area but round here virtually everyone now goes to
6th form colleges for A level, so an awful lot of teachers will never have
to cope with A level students.
Interestingly we found our best teachers were those who had done time in
industry and had a real breadth of experience even if their qualifications
were often things like HNDs and similar

Furthermore syllabus's change over time, although admittedly from the
conceptual and mathematical to the descriptive as far as the UK is
concerned.

However, teaching is an art: higher knowledge of a subject is no
guarantee that a person will have the requisite skills to impart basic
knowledge (perhaps even enthusiasm!) to schoolchildren and make it
stick.

Of course. However it's likely that those teaching A-level without
actually getting that far themselves are unlikely to be enthusiastic and
unlikely to have the basic knowledge. In many schools (state and
independent alike) an ignorant teacher is likely to get crucified by
smarter kids. Frankly it's pretty obvious when a teacher is bullsh*tting
due to ignorance, and doesn't build confidence if they can't immediately
answer quite simple questions.

Sacrificing higher knowledge for better teaching skills is a
good trade at school level.

Of course.
None the less good teaching skills and good knowledge is required. If
you are short on one or the other you are letting the kids down.

What's even worse is that numbers of kids doing sciences/maths is
steadily declining. At university it's even more pronounced.

as I grow older I realise that I should have stuck to the arts side, i could
happily and blathered my way through with no real effort.
Science tends to be hard work and on a strict cost benefit analysis you will
note that you often get a similar sort of job with a arts/humanities degree
as you do with a science

Sellafield used to take graduates for management, without bothering too much
what the degree was in.I suspect they are not the only ones

Jim Webster



--
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

as I grow older I realise that I should have stuck to the arts side, i could
happily and blathered my way through with no real effort.
Science tends to be hard work and on a strict cost benefit analysis you will
note that you often get a similar sort of job with a arts/humanities degree
as you do with a science

You are correct.

What's more the kids have spotted this, hence the significant reductions
in science/maths applications and the rise of media studies.

Of course I and my kids are crippled with dyslexia, which makes science
very attractive. However (and fortunately) these days horrendous
spelling is not heavily marked down as it was in my day.

Basically a science undergraduate can expect something approaching (and
exceeding) 20 lectures a week, plus several hours of practicals.

An arts undergraduate can expect some 5 hrs of lectures (which are
pretty optional), "reading weeks" (=weeks holiday) and a generally much
easier time.

So the difficulty difference between arts/science is now pretty immense.
If you want a worker, take on a science graduate.

My daughter, with A levels good enough to read maths almost anywhere and
sciences anywhere in the UK, has switched to economics. She isn't daft.

My son, fool that he is, is doing mathematical physics: say no more.
[Eh? Oh, he is in the scrape through - good time, division.]
[Still does many times the work of his arts friends, though.]

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

GeorgeDawson writes
At school, i had two maths teachers - one who had scraped his A-levels,
the other with a Maths PhD. The former was the better teacher (except
right at the top for further maths) as he could understand and explain
why us pupils were struggling with a particular bit. The PhD couldn't
grasp that not everyone understood on the first telling.

Indeed, not uncommon.

One hopes the PhD will learn differently, I'm sure the kids have
'assisted' in this education of the teacher!

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

On Friday, in article
"Jim Webster" wrote:

"Oz" wrote in message
...

What's even worse is that numbers of kids doing sciences/maths is
steadily declining. At university it's even more pronounced.

as I grow older I realise that I should have stuck to the arts side, i could
happily and blathered my way through with no real effort.
Science tends to be hard work and on a strict cost benefit analysis you will
note that you often get a similar sort of job with a arts/humanities degree
as you do with a science

Sellafield used to take graduates for management, without bothering too much
what the degree was in.I suspect they are not the only ones

The non-science side is filling with a lot of fuzzy crap, as well as the
stuff which would arguably be better sold as advanced vocational
training. I don't think the educational accomplishment of a degree in
vehicle maintenance is necessarily inadequate, but calling that sort of
training a degree risks losing a distinction in the language.

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.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3e9f2a38_1@newsfeed...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

"Oz" wrote in message
...

The (UK) Economist 19/4/3 P25

Qualifications of teachers teaching in UK percent:

Physics Chemistry Biology
Without degree 75 50 40
Without "A" level 30 15 25

Truly mind-boggling .....
...

It would not surprise me greatly to hear that for those employed
outside
education the figures are the inverse -

e.g. Physics: 25% without degree, Biology 60% without degree. You
actually find something like this in universities, e.g. in physics
departments few if any of the technicians will have a physics degree
whereas in biology nearly all will have. Schools are just another
employment sector that soaks up surplus graduates, and there are more
surplus biology graduates than physics graduates.

The without A level figure for Physics could be misleading as I would
expect most will have an A level in maths, similarly the biology
teachers
will probably have an A level in chemistry.

There are very few jobs for some one with B.A. in physics. It is a real
shame. IMO all engineers should have the equivalent of a B.A. in physic
in
order to understand what they do.


I expect many they have. They certainly have applied maths to a level that
matches BA in maths. When I was at Leeds the engineers tended to thrash the
maths undergraduates in the maths papers that the courses shared. Though
at the time the entry requirements for engineering were a couple of points
higher than for maths, so the grades were most likely a reflection of A
level grades. Though for myself I always found knowing how, and why,
something is used made it easier to learn.

As for employment for physics graduates, well I've always been surrounded
by them so I'd never really given much thought to where else they might
work. Certainly maths, physics and engineering were always favoured by
employers for the more challenging work in IT over computer science
graduates and the various business related IT courses - 'cos they can do
maths.

Michael Saunby

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

as I grow older I realise that I should have stuck to the arts side, i
could
happily and blathered my way through with no real effort.
Science tends to be hard work and on a strict cost benefit analysis you
will
note that you often get a similar sort of job with a arts/humanities
degree
as you do with a science

You are correct.

What's more the kids have spotted this, hence the significant reductions
in science/maths applications and the rise of media studies.


It was always so. The scientific civil service was always regarded as the
domain of the working class within the civil service. The difference today
is that with the growth in fashion, media, retailing, etc. there are
opportunities for working/lower-middle class graduates with humanities
degrees. There probably still aren't many openings for them in banking,
government, etc. though.

Michael Saunby

Oz wrote:


The (UK) Economist 19/4/3 P25

Qualifications of teachers teaching in UK percent:

Physics Chemistry Biology
Without degree 75 50 40
Without "A" level 30 15 25

Truly mind-boggling .....

NOTE for non-UK readers: These subjects are taught from age 13.
"A" levels taken aged 17 and give entry to university.
Usually about 3 "A" levels are taken.

The standard of a 'pass' at "A" level is *very* modest.
The standard of a good grade is high.

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. the belief kept the teaching of Latin as a living language alive
until long after the last Roman Emperor's final bacchanal.
So science moves forward with nanotech, wi-fi, genome analysis, cloning the
bauteng, creating new materials and rightly ignores the critics.

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

Dennis