Should the brightest pupils be required to study extra science subjects?
The Confederation of British Industry wants the 250,000 pupils who get top marks in national science SAT exams at age 14 to be automatically opted in for a two-year “triple science” GCSE course covering physics, chemistry and biology.
The CBI says three-fifths of firms are having trouble recruiting science graduates and blame the problem on a long-term decline in science teaching at schools.
The number of specialist science teachers has halved over the past 20 years and only 7 percent of pupils currently take the triple science GCSE option — most take a double or single science course.
The CBI proposal would require a huge boost to science teaching — already promised by the government — but the industry body says its ambition could be reached by 2013.
Schools Minister Jim Knight maintains that increasing the number of science graduates is a top government priority but says opting-in the best pupils is not the answer.
What do you think should be done?
Trackback
9 comments so far
The CBI proposal is a good one and should be supported by the government, although it will probably have to wait for a more forward-looking government to be elected in 2010.
But both the CBI and the government need to do more than improve teaching of the sciences in the schools. They have to convince kids that qualifications in the sciences will lead to high status, well paid careers in cutting edge industries.
Without that, the proposal is nothing more than yet another meaningless soundbite.
- Posted by MikeThe problem is not just confined to the UK. A recent article in New Scientist noted that there is an almost exact anti-correlation between a country’s UN Human Development Index (HDI) and the proportion of its school-leavers who go on to careers in science; i.e. the more developed a country, the less likely its teenagers are to want to be scientists.
Given the proportion of starting salaries less than £20k for science jobs requiring a degree level qualification, this probably isn’t really that surprising. The vast majority of my fellow undergraduate physics students didn’t go into ’science’ per se, but were just after a degree as a stepping stone to other things, probably rather better paid than a career as a ’scientist’.
- Posted by Matt WenhamMy son completed his Phd. in Chemistry last December and is still looking for a job.
From the time he was eight I encouraged him in the sciences and he worked very hard to get a Bsc and Msc and finally a Phd.I felt confident he would have no difficulty getting a job at the end of it.Everyone said there was a shortage of scientists in the U.K.However he’s now been told that he has’nt got enough experience.
I feel he may believe I gave him the wrong guidance and I’m quite disappointed about that.
- Posted by f goughCorrection: from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v6_issue2/f oreword/foreword7.htm
“The higher level of development in a country, the lower interest the students express in learning about Science and Technology-related topics”
The same report also shows that “the more developed a country is, the less positive young people are towards the role of S&T in society”.
- Posted by Matt WenhamOf course it’s an excellent idea, but science graduates - both my sons are such - are traditionally poorly paid, so they’ve used their training elsewhere in better paid jobs.
- Posted by David RileyIt’s a bit rich of the CBI to bemoan the lack of science graduates when it’s their members who don’t pay enough to attract them! I would bet my mortgage that if salaries were increased the shortage would disappear overnight.
I am not convinced there is a shortage of suitably skilled people.
If there was a shortage, wages would be much higher and I (a post grad qualified engineer) wouldnt be sitting in a City investment bank surrounded by many other scientists and engineers, all earning at least 6x what engineers and scientists earn.
- Posted by CliveI think those that are pointing out the obvious regarding the low level pay in the sciences have hit the nail on the head. The best way to “generate interest in the sciences” is to pay a fair salary.
Given the level of skill and education required, jobs in science are incredibly underpaid. So what is the CBI’s answer? Maybe pay them more? No, to hell with that, much better to increase numbers whilst still keeping salaries down by trying to get more students into the under paid sciences through stealth.
- Posted by SaneAlso interesting that the CBI said almost exactly the same thing exactly two years ago:
CBI science warning - 11 Aug 2006 - http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/ne ws/article.html?uid=1740
“The CBI too criticised the Double Award Science scheme, which 75 per cent of children study - complaining it squeezes three subjects into two, which in turn can leave A level students unprepared. The CBI wants children to be given the option of studying three separate science GCSEs; the government has appeased the business lobby by promising to initiate such a policy by 2008″.
Looks like the government didn’t initiate such a policy and so the CBI are once again banging their drum about it.
- Posted by Matt WenhamYES — SO DO ENGLISH (GRAMMAR) AND BASIC MATH.
- Posted by AMERICA-FIRST