[Closed] pupils "held back" by overemphasis on arts

and here is a very well worded and eloquent response that portrays my exasperation far better than i myself could [url= https://www.dropbox.com/s/2i8tbneylzqqos2/1411%20-%20Letter%20to%20Nicky%20Morgan%2C%20Education%20Secretary.pdf?dl=0 ]click[/url]

Not sure she is condemning anything. Seems she is suggesting that if you haven't got a clue what to do with your life like many 14-16 year olds then it may be a fallacy that choosing options with a definite humanties or arts bias will leave more career doors open than taking science based subjects or a mixture of the two.

I am no Nicky Morgan fan but it seems her advisors probably meant well here.

The response above may well address this but I fell asleep half way through

i was held back by all the languages/maths/science crap in school. luckily i blossomed later on in educashon

On a quick scanned quick read, I must admit that she's probably correct in that foregoing some sciences will limit you in terms of rigour and process and some progression. And I do have some reservations as to the likely prospects of students taking some of the soft courses.
As an explanation I have an Arts first degree and post-grad which I got to through doing 3 sciences at A-level.
I do spend lots of time working with engineers though in a very engineering biased environment.
(Edit) I'm not in any way suggesting that arts are not worth studying.

I hated all drama, music, art in school from the age of about 5. Hated it and always considered it so much worse as i loved the science and technology lessons we never did enough of because techers love a good Xmas nativity etc. I'm now an aerospace engineer, still think all that singing, painting and prancing about pretending to be a shepherd or a tree or whatever was nonsense.

Nevermind Science, more English Language needs to be taught - I recently went to uni as a mature student and couldn't believe how bad most other students' written English was/is (this was on an Arts degree)!
This post was originally a lot longer but thought I should keep some of my views to myself.

What's the first thing you ask an arts/media/humanities major? "Can I have fries with that?"

Why do they need to be exclusive? If I could redo my education I should have done more arty stuff rather than try to conform to the norm.

I work in the Arts. We do a shed load of physics, engineering and software. And are not afraid to ask for help if we need it. And often the non arty consultant learns or experiences something they would never have done otherwise.

[quote=methers27 ]and here is a very well worded and eloquent response that portrays my exasperation far better than i myself could click

Wow, I'm amazed at just how completely that is missing the point. Presumably there are hundreds of thousands of jobs out there which studying music qualifies you for?

I think it's abolutely true and industry is feeling the effects of it now. Our youth unemployment figures seem to show that we have a plethora of young people highly educated in subjects that are of no use to industry and our economy. These poor kids have been very ill-advised during their academic careers by namby pamby politically correct careers advisors. The company I work for cannot find young British people to fill our vacancies and as such are employing young people from abroad with their far more useful and relevant degrees. There are jobs are out there with no-one to fill them, and it's not just holding back the young people concerned, but potentially the nations economy. It's a terrible shame and will take a generation or two to overturn.

Very few people I know who did arty subjects work in related jobs. They all ended up doing further study or work experience to get a proper job.

English, foreign languages, business, finance, tech, sciences, maths and physical ed should all be the priorities.

I think it's abolutely true and industry is feeling the effects of it now. Our youth unemployment figures seem to show that we have a plethora of young people highly educated in subjects that are of no use to industry and our economy.

This. We have a skills shortage and it is one of the responsibilities of the education secretary to try to address it. 'Soft' subjects in the humanities or social sciences are often an easy option for pupils and the spread of teaching staff means that they are promoted on an equal footing.

No-one should be prevented from studying the humanities if they have a genuine keen interest and enjoyment of the subjects, but frankly, my BA in English Langugage and Literature was a waste of time and effort. Looking back, I'd rather someone had told me to pull my finger out and put some effort into my science subjects - I was easily capable enough to do it.

Time to abandon dumbed down ”joint science” and make physics & chemistry mandatory?

physics & chemistry mandatory?

or maybe finally recognise that there's no such thing as Chemistry, just Physics. Really, really, tiny Physics 😉

I studied art, now I draw for a living, getting paid to be creative, most of my peers are spreadsheet slaves, can you deal with that?

To be fair she's making a lot of sense, especially considering the target audience (science tech engineering maths forum)
Just imagine how her predecessor would've phrased it, probably said all art teachers were lazy pinko incomeptents , it was all labours/bbc/blacadders fault and memorizing a king James bible cover to cover is all the humanities you'll ever need.

Personally I think some arts education should be encouraged for all kids even at a level via general studies etc BUT that some sort of sciencey/maths foundation should also be compulsory

I went to university doing aeronautical engineering fortunately I ended up a computer game artist.

I don't think there's any argument that some arts graduates get arts-related jobs. I ended up in journalism. However the pool these creative jobs is relatively small and competitive, whereas we have shortages of skilled people in science.

If I understand Nicky Morgan's point, it is that people who are undecided on their career path at 14-16 tend to get directed towards arts and humanities rather than sciences, and this is misguided. She's not saying that people with a genuine talent and desire to forge a career in the arts should be denied this.

[url= http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en:// ]All those with rather arbitrary views on educational choices, look away now[/url]

I skimmed the transcript of that, it seemed to me more about allowing leeway for creativity in all subjects. Arts subjects obviously have more opportunity for that, but so do sciences. The difference being that scientific creativity needs to be underpinned by a foundation of technical knowledge.

I wish education wasn't getting so vocation-focused. What happened to an all-round education?

We're all becoming worker bees, efficiently plugging away at what makes the most honey.

The world would be pretty dire without artistic and creative people.
😕

allowing leeway for creativity in all subjects. Arts subjects obviously have more opportunity for that, but so do sciences. The difference being that scientific creativity needs to be underpinned by a foundation of technical knowledge.

I think you play down what is required to be a success in artistic fields, applied arts etc. Technical knowledge perhaps isn't so tangible, but the most successful artists, designers, architects etc are far from thick generally...

You know it's at times like this that I'm glad I was educated in Scotland. Granted the school teaching might be a year less, and necessarily slighly less involved as a result, but it does afford a much broader base. My highers were/are evenly balanced between the sciences and humanities (although my aptitude was always towards the sciences) but I learned very useful skills from studying History that have stood me in good stead.

business, finance, tech, sciences, maths and physical ed should all be the priorities.

Business and physical education. Two of the most useless subjects as currently taught. The sandwich year, placement or graduate trainees I used to supervise had so little use of how businesses were structured, operated or financed. Many also came in with the idea they knew it all - which wasn't helpful either...

Physical education teaches very little about building physical activity into your life.

I never liked Art and Music lessons at school, but they were great for folk who did and would otherwise not have realised their talent. That said, in my first year at grammar school we had Pottery on the timetable once a week. Now that really is a waste of time, unless there is ever a national shortage of unfeasably large clay breasts and genitals, in which case I can round up 25 experts.

One of the key questions has to be are we educating to make them more useful to the economy in terms of employment or make them rounded citizens...? They are not necessarily the same thing. Part of education needs to give people the opportunities to discover things they will use in their life for enjoyment e.g. literature or art as well as understanding that these subjects often offer indirect benefits.

Other humanities subjects are also essential e.g. history. Without knowing the past, how can we shape the future? Also people often lob geography in as a useless subject - yet many aspects of geography are then very practically applicable when taken further in study - e.g. hydrology, urban development, demographics etc...

It sort of depends if you think the only role of education is to produce competent workers or if education is a thing of worth in itself. Even saying that there's a lot of evidence that things like singing are incredibly beneficial in all sorts of ways. Also IIRC music, creative arts, design etc are some of our biggest exports.

I hated all drama, music, art in school from the age of about 5. Hated it and always considered it so much worse as i loved the science and technology lessons we never did enough of because techers love a good Xmas nativity etc. I'm now an aerospace engineer, still think all that singing, painting and prancing about pretending to be a shepherd or a tree or whatever was nonsense.

Maybe it was just badly taught. Either that or you are completely uptight and joyless.

I think you play down what is required to be a success in artistic fields, applied arts etc. Technical knowledge perhaps isn't so tangible, but the most successful artists, designers, architects etc are far from thick generally...

Wasn't my badly-expressed intention - I was focusing on a school environment where, although there are significant technical skills to learn in art subjects over the course of a school career, they aren't quite as academically fixed and brutal as some of those you have to learn and understand in maths and the physical sciences before you can start to use your imagination. In art, imagination and creativity can come into play on day one, if it is allowed.

I was thinking more about my subject - English - many of the skills you need (middle english excepted) are related to bullshit.

I am really depressed by the "education as job training" ethos. Training people to do a specific job does not produce rounded individuals and an open-minded liberal society. Educating people broadly to have an appreciation and understanding of many subjects will produce a flexible workforce and a richer society, both financially and culturally. I did double Maths, Physics, Chemistry and English at A level and had to fight like hell to be allowed to do English, the timetable was entirely geared round pupils doing either arts or science subjects. This was 30 years ago, and I suspect not much has changed.

That said I think Nicky Morgan's points are valid insofar as many pupils seem to drift into arts subjects as a default option

As an aside, I find it extraordinary that many "highly educated" people who consider themselves intelligent are perfectly willing to declare that they are hopeless at Maths, whereas if you were to suggest that they are barely literate they would be outraged.</stream_of_conciousness_waffle>

Training people to do a specific job does not produce rounded individuals and an open-minded liberal society. Educating people broadly to have an appreciation and understanding of many subjects will produce a flexible workforce and a richer society, both financially and culturally.

That's all just speculation.....

</stream_of_conciousness_waffle>

streamofconsciousnesswaffleshurely?

so, the idea is that by studying a science, you'll be more employable?

i laugh cynically at this proposition.

I am really depressed by the "education as job training" ethos.

It's been around since the Victorians introduced mass education - there was no greater good, just the need to skill up a workforce.

But anyone who tells me that maths/science is better than english/drama (or vice versa) has probably missed the point of the education afforded to them.

God forbid they do any philosophy or social social science, they might then be capable of thinking for themselves.

Let's not confuse “studying art” with some of the options you can do for GCSEs instead of the Sciences.

Let's also think twice before suggesting that social sciences are tought in such as way at GCSE level as to encourage pupils to “think for themselves” any more than other subjects.

Also, why assume that learning about science is “job training” and doing other subjects is just for the love of the subject? Piffle! Science effects everything you do… something any good artist will tell you.

they might then be capable of thinking for themselves.

Who do people assume that you can only think for yourself if you study Arts / Humanities?

It just comes across as some sort of elitist nonsense / bitter retort (delete as appropriate) from non-STEM graduates.

There is an awful lot of conjecture here. Government stats and literature do not support assertions about marginal incomes and topics studied partly because of the data which is left out concerning competitive entry and self-employment. Doing PPE didn't seem to impede the progress of Cameron or Miliband, 'social studies' graduates earn more than the average graduate.
A lot of what is being said my the minister et al is blaming the victim for what is essentially a systemic problem.

It's been around since the Victorians introduced mass education - there was no greater good, just the need to skill up a workforce.

And increase social control...

It's not stupid. But it's not this simple either.

Fundamentally, if you are a kid without specific aptitude and drive towards a science subject, doing more science and maths alevels isn't generally going to turn you into a STEM candidate. More likely, it'll see you leave school with a bunch of Cs in subjects you didn't really enjoy. You can't create a specific type of student just by chopping and changing a-level picks. The comments on A* GCSE performers are very valid but that's a relatively small areas.

If the desire's really to increase the number of STEM students, that needs to start far earlier, and it needs to happen in a lot of places other than schools. We need to treat science and mathematics with more respect- and that includes governments stopping playing stupid games with maths, or dismissing "quantitative evidence" as unimportant

There's a fair bit of misrepresentation of the stats too- for one thing, they've included all "business" courses in with arts and humanities, which includes accounting, economics etc- so it's not all "soft" or unapplied courses. But also, the reason for the increase in those courses hasn't come at the expense of STEM subjects, in fact STEM courses have grown too. There has been a lot of movement from further to higher education of arts and business courses- so what might look like a huge growth in arts students, could well be just a move from college to university. That's no detriment to science, it's not a rivalry

Because in philosophy you are encouraged to think for yourself, footflaps, and in sciences spoon fed and asked to regurgitate.

Inquisitive, open-minded, pataphysical deliberations are encouraged in the arts and crushed in science where the best-fit hypothesis is not to be challenged by mere students.

This was the subject of my PGCE essay BTW.

Because in philosophy you are encouraged to think for yourself, footflaps, and in sciences spoon fed and asked to regurgitate.

Inquisitive, open-minded, pataphysical deliberations are encouraged in the arts and crushed in science where the best-fit hypothesis is not to be challenged by mere students.

This was the subject of my PGCE essay BTW.

You clearly never studied STEM subjects then, a bigger load of bollocks I have never read. Science is ALL about open mindedness, are you sure you aren't getting it confused with Scientology?

Edukator - Troll
Because in philosophy you are encouraged to think for yourself, footflaps, and in sciences spoon fed and asked to regurgitate.

Inquisitive, open-minded, pataphysical deliberations are encouraged in the arts and crushed in science where the best-fit hypothesis is not to be challenged by mere students.

This was the subject of my PGCE essay BTW.

I was going to reply to the rest of the thread but this stopped me in my tracks. I hope you don't teach science because if you do you are doing it very wrong.

My PGCE was many years ago and I was challenging the way science was being taught then. So I didn't study something (STEM) dreamed up many years later. Science is all about an open mind but you wouldn't believe that from the way sciences are [b]still[/b] taught.

STEM is not a subject, it is an acronym for a group of subjects which I suspect you would have studied at least up to a certain point or you wouldn't be teaching now.

Sciences are taught in a variety of manners in my experience and saying that any of the STEM courses are taught with an emphasis on verbatim learning is largely incorrect.

Edukator you come across as being very very very stupid (or just biased).

There would have been no scientific progress if open mindedness was mutually exclusive with studying the sciences.

the fact that this education minister thinks ANY pupil right now could have a school plan that overemphasises the arts and not STEM is laughable, she and her predecessors (of all political hues) have marginalised the arts - which is quite astounding if you look at the art, design, music that this country produces and the ROI you get. I know that she's mindlessly lumping humanities in with the arts but the same applies.

yes STEM is important and yes a lot of people don't make a full time living out of the arts after study, but consider that only the tiniest percentage of graduates don't have employment, you'll find that those arts graduates have their artistic pursuit as a 2nd income

Well open up a current physics text book and show me where they encourage imaginative thinking, footflaps. Do this, do that, observe such and such, draw this conclusion, learn these facts and make sure you can regurgitate all that in an exam. It just teaches kids to go through pre-written procedures in a formatted manner.

NB For those that don't know STEM is an acronym referring to the academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Well open up a current physics text book and show me where they encourage imaginative thinking, footflaps.

In order to advance in any subject you need to learn the basics. If you learn music, you learn the basics first e.g. scales etc but just because you're learning a pattern by heart doesn't mean your mind is being closed. Or is anyone who studies music closed minded as well?

It just teaches kids to go through pre-written procedures in a formatted manner.

It teaches the basics of scientific rigour eg that you start with a hypothesis and design an experiment to prove or disprove the initial hypothesis and then learn how to interpret the results to draw a conclusion.

The very fact we see continual progress in all the STEM subjects shows that people are being open minded and challenging what has gone before and pushing back the boundaries on a daily basis. Or maybe you think that everyone in STEM businesses has actually studied Philosophy.....

I taught my son to play guitar but I didn't teach him scales. He started to ask about them when he found people playing in different keys on Youtube. By that time he was playing very well. I'd post some of his compositions but fear plagiarism so he's banned from putting his original stuff on the Net.

[url=

Bruce from one minute on about his musical education[/url]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to lump GCSE choices and A level choices in together, as science and maths are both (essentially) compulsory at GCSE.

Speaking as an A-level physics teacher, I [i]really[/i] hope we [i]don't[/i] suddenly get a bunch of kids selecting physics because they don't really know what they want to do. I want to teach students who have a genuine interest and aptitude for the subject!

I taught my son to play guitar but I didn't teach him scales.

Well done! You might, however, want to look up the difference between an anecdote and a hypothesis. I will warn you now that it's a STEM thing so you might not understand it.....

Well open up a current physics text book and show me where they encourage imaginative thinking, footflaps.

We currently teach A-level physics B, which requires huge amounts of imagination and creative thinking to apply the fundamental concepts to varied scenarios.

If you want to see creativity, watch these videos made by some students after last year's unit 1 exam, which was fairly 'challenging'... 🙂

You can study STEM academically. It's not just an acronym (or abbreviation), it's also regarded as an approach. See what the Americans have to say.

I don't see any creativity in the first vid, Mike. I see lots of copy-paste.

We currently teach A-level physics B, which requires huge amounts of imagination and creative thinking to apply the fundamental concepts to varied scenarios.

I think we're wasting our time, apparently the only person who can think creatively is edukator and his son (who wasn't taught scales and thus spared a lifetime of closed minded drudgery).

The people I knew at uni who studied philosophy mainly memorised sets of arguments and essays and regurgitated them in an exam.

Discuss.

I don't see any creativity in the first vid, Mike. I see lots of copy-paste.

I see the use of a meme to convey humour.

I think we're wasting our time, apparently the only person who can think creatively is edukator and his son (who wasn't taught scales and thus spared a lifetime of closed minded drudgery).

You say that but a philosophy graduate who can't play scales landed a spaceship on a comet yesterday. Oh, hang on.

I think closed minded people see what they want to see, regardless of the evidence to the contrary....

You say that but a philosophy graduate who can't play scales landed a spaceship on a comet yesterday. Oh, hang on.

I was going to mention that, but he'll just come back saying either:
a) ESA is entirely run by Philosophy graduates
b) he taught them all the guitar
c) none of them learnt scales as a child

The people I knew at uni who studied philosophy mainly memorised sets of arguments and essays and regurgitated them in an exam.

That's pretty much what I did in A Level Latin. Learned to recognise about every 10th sentence in Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' in Latin, then learned the entire English translation around this, on the basis that the passages presented for translation were at least 15 sentences long.

I thought it a creative solution at the time. 😀

I thought it a creative solution at the time.

quid a ipsum scientifica methodo

I think closed minded people see what they want to see, regardless of the evidence to the contrary....

Surely a science-minded person like yourself would know that everyone is affected by confirmation bias.

Surely a science-minded person like yourself would know that everyone is affected by confirmation bias.

Sadly yes.

Philosophy as a subject these days is actually history of philosophy, learn what other people thought, and learn to argue with other people who know what other people thought by countering their repeating other people's thoughts with your own repetition of other peoples thoughts.

Free thinking? Not "just learning by rote"? Pfffft.

Nowadays that we seek to understand the world by observation, measurement, understanding, and analysis; we've got over "philosophy".

we've got over "philosophy".

well some of us have..

Surely a science-minded person like yourself would know that everyone is affected by confirmation bias.

Ever since I learned about confirmation bias I see it everywhere.

Ever since I learned about confirmation bias I see it everywhere.

You say that but a philosophy graduate who can't play scales landed a spaceship on a comet yesterday. Oh, hang on.

I imagine a good number of them were doctors of philosophy.

I kind of see where edukator is coming from. Science taught badly can be about learning equations and answers to exam questions rather than exploring the world around us, questioning it and creating new ideas.

But then so can most subjects.

I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.

I do suggest watching that Jack Bruce interview a few times though. You've been behaving as stereotypical teachers, Mike and Footflaps, trying to put down someone who dares to challenge who you don't have an answer for. When you lack arguments you bluster and insult. Read back, what would the parents of your students think of your childish mimickery, sarcasm and mockery? "Edukator you come across as being very very very stupid" - et pourtant.

[quote=Edukator ]I taught my son to play guitar but I didn't teach him scales.

Presumably it didn't take long to teach him how to hold the guitar and pluck a string. I'm assuming you didn't stifle his imaginative thinking by teaching him chords, rhythm or harmony either. I'm sure an awful lot of musical creativity has been held back by knowing which note comes after which.

Because of course there are a lot of conventions in music - you might hot have formally taught him scales, just as my son hasn't formally learnt any yet with his cornet lessons, but he knows how to play C, D, E, F, G, A (lips not quite yet trained enough to reliably manage the B and next C). Strangely enough the valves are in the same order on all cornets and also the same on a trumpet (and indeed on any valved brass instrument), hence I could play his having never played a cornet before. In the same way there is a standard to the order of strings on a guitar and how music is written down among lots of other things you have to formally learn.

The really interesting thing is that unlike the stuff in a physics text book in music these things are just conventions, with no particular reason why the middle line on a stave is a B, or that the first valve on a trumpet drops the note two semi-tones.

edit:
[quote=Edukator ]I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.

Oops, you posted while I was typing - though I think my point stands.

I kind of see where edukator is coming from. Science taught badly can be about learning equations and answers to exam questions rather than exploring the world around us, questioning it and creating new ideas.

There is no taught subject which doesn't involve a lot of learning of ideas which have gone before (that I can think of). All subject ultimately involve "questioning it and creating new ideas" otherwise knowledge would have stopped 100s of years ago and we'd be using Egyptian / Greek technology / language etc.

It is generally considered that "questioning it and creating new ideas" is an innate human trait which is independent of whatever subject you study / profession you choose. Obviously some individuals questions more than others, but you'll find a spread of ability in any subject / field, even amongst Philosophers and musicians who can't play Scales.

I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.

See you tomorrow!

I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.

All I can say is you bring it upon yourself.

I asked how come science keeps expanding in knowledge even though they're all closed minded and you replied with an anecdote about your son and not teaching him the scales. That's hardly engaging in rigorous debate...

Science taught badly can be about learning equations and answers to exam questions rather than exploring the world around us, questioning it and creating new ideas.

We need to provide the students with an understanding of the giants' shoulders, otherwise what will they stand upon?

Besides there's no time for creativity, because of all the mockery and sarcasm.

I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.

Your opening gambit was to accuse all science teachers of spoonfeeding facts to be regurgitated, whilst claiming philosophy teachers creative thinking. You reap what you sow.

The things in the physics text book are just as arbitrary. All the measures are convenient units with the exception of the speed of light when it is used as a unit.

Teach harmony sure, but point out the use of counter harmony too.

Teach rhythm, but that the rules aren't fixed and some guitarists play on feel around the rythm. Keith Richards is often just before or after the beat. And that there are lots of time signatures to play with.

Guitar tuning is far from fixed, dropped D, E, G. Do you tune to 400hz or lower? Take off the E string if it gets in the way.

If you must teach a convention then show how the convention has its limits too.

whilst claiming philosophy teachers creative thinking.

Well they certainly don't teach the difference between an anecdote and a hypothesis....

The things in the physics text book are just as arbitrary. All the measures are convenient units with the exception of the speed of light when it is used as a unit.

You really don't understand Physics. Any Physicist / Engineer or Scientist knows that units are arbitrary and it really doesn't matter what set you use as long as it's defined and consistent. The fundamental dimensions such as time, length and mass are all that's important, which is what Physics teaches. In order to measure, record and teach these dimensions you need units, which is why we have them.