The new qualifications watchdog for England has some complaints about the level of GCSE science and physics examinations. For those of you fortunate enough not to have been permanently scarred by Britain’s characteristically unfathomable education system (and the fact that you can actually understand these posts with their parentheses and long words suggest that you are so fortunate), a GCSE is an exam taken by pupils around the age of 15 or 16. Or 25, if they go to state schools. Likewise, a watchdog is where failed politicians go to collect their generous unemployment benefits. (Wow, when did I get this cynical? Oh right, when I learned to read.)
The watchdog (sorry, they don’t seem to have a name that I can find within my limited window of interest, but I’m sure it’s OFQUAL or something similarly dull, so I’ll be using pronouns to refer to them for this post. For the people educated in England, a pronoun is a word that is probably out of your reach.) seems to think the questions are too easy. One of the questions they take issue with is this one:
Our moon seems to disappear during an eclipse. Some people say this is because an old lady covers the moon with her cloak. She does this so that thieves cannot steal the shiny coins on the surface. Which of these would help scientists to prove or disprove this idea?
A) Collect evidence from people who believe the lady sees the thieves
B) Shout to the lady that the thieves are coming
C) Send a probe to the moon to search for coins
D) Look for fingerprints
It may look like the answer should be C. But as any proper scientist knows, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So the simple fact that the probe does not find any coins does not disprove this theory. If it does find coins, it only proves that there are coins, not that they contribute in any way to an eclipse. So, the correct answer is not even in the list. Pretty challenging, I would say!
For the English among you, the correct answer is E) Call Richard Dawkins and have him fund an advertising campaign to convince people that the old lady does not exist. She is in fact fairly young by astronomical standards.
Next question:
When we sweat water leaves the body through…
A) Kidneys B) Liver C) Lungs D) Skin
Again, looks deceptively simple. But imagine trying to answer this question like an English 16-year-old. To them the question looks like this:
Qkqe al wowro qodad aldajk oad iwue fsanff…
K) Aflpqes *) Ddfaa 1) Ikgms D) Lsfa
Not so easy if you never learned to read, is it?
Another question, this time about life on other planets:
At the astronomical club Alec and Louise discuss the possibility of intelligent life existing on other planets.
Which of the following statements supports the possibility of existence of intelligent life in our galaxy?
A) The galaxy is expanding very quickly
B) The earth is over four billion years old
C) The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence has spent millions of hours analysing signals from space
D) There are so many stars in the galaxy
Though the answer is very obvious (it is A. By moving further away from us, other planets get more intelligent), I pointed this one out because it is so well formulated. When I was at school, we just got questions without any context or relevance. By suggesting that this question is an integral part of a discussion at an astronomical club, the pupils immediately understand the relevance. They too like to go to clubs to have discussions that may end in the discovery of new life. For next year’s exams, may I suggest ‘In his physics GCSE, Abdul has to answer the following question.’ See how relevant it is? And I made it politically correct, too.
There are also some complaints about the level of pupils’ knowledge:
[52% of candidates] believe that the “prevent global warming” website was likely to be less biased than the Royal Society of Chemistry website.
Biased on which matter? The funding of chemical research? And who are behind this website? Are they less reliable than the Royal Society of Chemistry? How reliable are they anyway? And what are they doing in the debate on global warming? I thought that was largely between physicists and geographers. Are they trying to get some of that sweet climate funding? Not making enough inventing new chemical drugs to push to the children? Will nobody think of the children?!
Finally, once again, it has to be reported that the amazing percentage of 59% of higher level candidates think the current in a wire is the movement of positive electrons.
Of course, the examiner continues, there are such things as positive electrons, but they are not on the specification for science or additional science and, being antimatter, most certainly do not flow in a wire.
So just because it is not on the specification, it is wrong? You just want them to mindlessly regurgitate what you tell them? You planning to raise an army of zombies to attack the royal society of Chemistry for stealing your funding? And what’s the deal with physics anyway? First there are particles and waves and then you spring photons on us, which are both particles and waves? Make up your minds! And after we have learned about molecules and atoms, you start telling us atoms can be split! And not just in neutrons, protons and electrons; they can be subdivided again! What do you think atomic means? “Cannot be further divided unless a Nobel price or generous funding is on offer?” And what’s up with that particle accelerator anyway?! For that kind of funding I don’t just want Higgs bosons, I want black holes and intergalactic laser guns! The Higgs bosons you can keep, just give me the laser guns!
As always, the solution to this little education crisis is simple: move to Scotland.
Post a Comment