From the BBC*, I learned that there’s been an unexpected turn around in science education in the UK:
The latest statistics from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service on applications to join full-time degree courses, show double-figure percentage rises compared with the same time last year for physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering and technology.
The speculations have begun:
While admission officers admit that they are baffled by this sudden and unexpected surge in interest, many secondary school and university tutors are convinced this is a result of long hard work by many working our education system.
“We really make a point of doing fun, practical things with all pupils when it comes to the sciences,” said Richard West, the head of science and physics at St Peter’s Collegiate School in Wolverhampton.
“We are encouraging after school science activities like astronomy and animal clubs and taking part in national competitions.”
Various other possible reasons are discussed as well, such as:
[Experts] say the introduction of fees may also have focused students’ attention on long-term career prospects and the need to have training in subjects which underpin much of the healthcare, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors.
A physics lecturer, Dr Averil MacDonald, claims:
“Many youngsters are realising that if you want to get on in life, science has to be one of the best ways.
“Young people have woken up and are realising that you can’t just go to university because of a general interest, you have to think about it.
“They want a qualification of value. They want to get a good job and good prospects.”
Closer to the mark may be the intrinsic interest of the subject itself, and perhaps a new awareness of its relevance to matters that come up in the news and other media:
Prof Talbot thinks that in the case of biological sciences, there is an increasing awareness among youngsters that conservation issues, environmental problems and the impact of climate change on the biodiversity of the planet are all problems that will need to be solved by their generation.
“There is a real interest among the applicants that I meet in genetics and the use of the huge new flood of genetic information in understanding how organisms work,” he said.
But to my mind, the most important effect was identified by a student, Helen Simpson, who said:
“I think that good teachers that are enthusiastic about sciences are the most important thing that a school can do,” she says. “If your teachers are excited about sciences and actually know what they are talking about then the students will be keen about it.”
(On that note, see a recent BBC article here about Physics teaching, entitled “Expert teachers ‘key to physics'”.)
Well, you should read the rest of the article since there is a lot more there (including important discussions about competitiveness with China and India, and diversity).
I wonder if this really is a new trend, or if it is simply a random fluctuation? It certainly sounds like it is robust, but it’s way too early to get complacent, of course.
-cvj
(*Thanks Mary Cole!)
For teaching high school subjects, the senior level courses (ie. physics, calculus, etc …) are somewhat easier to teach than the lower level ones. Though for obvious reasons, most physics teachers won’t be teaching purely senior year physics and/or calculus. For bureaucratic and demographic reasons, most physics teachers will end up teaching courses like introductory science and/or basic algebra, which tend to be a lot harder to teach effectively. The senior courses like physics, calculus, etc …, are frequently “optional” and tend to have the better behaved kids. The “badasses” and “stoners”, typically avoid courses which require them to actually have to do any thinking or “work”.
The hardest part is dealing with the bad behavior and discipline issues in teaching these intro courses, considering many of these courses are mandatory for all the kids. Many kids simply do not want to be there for the most part, and will show their displeasure in a very belligerent manner. These days discipline is largely non-existent and ineffective in dealing with anything anymore. Short of gunning down a teacher with a shotgun, kids can get away with literally almost anything these days with impunity.
Administration has largely “washed their hands” of the situation and completely refuse to deal with bad behavior anymore, unless it’s a situation which requires intervention by law enforcement (ie. usually the SWAT team). If a teacher sends a misbehaving kid down to the principal’s office for bad behavior, they’ll just send the kid straight back to the classroom. Even calling parents about their kids’ bad behavior is largely ineffective these days too. Basically parents will tell you to “fuck off” and say that teachers are the problem, and/or they’ll make insulting remarks like, “Where the fuck did you get your teaching license? In a crackerjack box?!?!?!” Imposing discipline on defiant kids, can also subject teachers and/or the school board to lawsuits by parents these days. If a teacher insists on demanding high “standards”, they better have a very good lawyer representing them.
Teachers of the hardline “old school” variety (ie. folks who are almost retired) who have a reputation for discipline and order, constantly have to watch their backs. Their more violent students will frequently physically assault them (ie. punch and/or kick them in the face), and/or gun them down or stab them with a knife on the street. Essentially the “inmates” are running the “asylum” these days. The entire system works against teachers for the most part these days.
With grade inflation being a huge problem, basically nobody fails these days. Administration will literally veto and change any grades which they consider “too low”. In fact teachers can get fired if they flunk too many students. Parents will constantly call and berate the administrators and teachers who flunk their kids, and/or give tests and exams which are “too hard”. Some more aggressive parents will even make a huge stink about it, that it ends up on the front page of the local newspaper and/or on the local TV news.
This is not surprising as to why the “half life” of many high school teachers is around five years, before they either burn out and/or find out they actually really hate dealing with disrespectful high school kids. To be an effective high school teacher these days, one literally has to have the street smarts of a police officer combined with the cynicism of a professional stand-up comedian. I would not recommend teaching high school as a profession, unless one has an extremely “thick skin” along with nerves of steel for dealing with bad behavior from all directions at the same time.
Interesting — I hope this is a new trend but, as you say, it’s hard to tell.
It’s certainly the case that UCAS applications (from middle-class students) have jumped up in the last year — do you know if the increase in science is in line with this, or a proportional increase relative to the number of total UCAS applications? (I don’t know what the rate of increase is for all UCAS applications).
Interestingly, while Scotland is doing some good things to encourage graduates to go into teaching, there is a legal requirement in Scotland that teachers have an undergrad degree in the subject that they teach. Unfortunately this means that, for example, engineers can’t teach physics or maths, which seems a bit silly.
But it would be great if this is indeed a sign of increased interest in science and better teaching at school level.
–IP