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

You really don't understand Physics.

Quote my incorrect statement please.

[quote=Edukator ]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.

How curious that for a free thinker you are so predictable 😆 I don't have a physics text book here, but do have an engineering one from uni, and flicking open to a random place it explains how an electrical current in a wire results in a magnetic field. Nothing arbitrary about that. Of course you have to measure stuff which results in arbitrary units, though the speed of light is far from the only one which isn't (mass of a hydrogen atom, universal gravitational constant, triple point of water, wavelength of emission spectrum of krypton-86 atom etc.) and most of the arbitrary ones are now defined simply as multiples or combinations of those.

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...

In just the same way that in science you start with the fundamental rules and then go discovering stuff you don't know about. But you still have those conventions you have to start from, especially if you hope to be able to play music with other people in a band or orchestra.

Just because Jack Bruce encountered silly music teachers who didn't appreciate his creativity doesn't mean he'd have been able to produce what he did without having learnt the basics - he's fundamentally wrong about it all being useless and forgetting that the stuff he uses without even thinking about he had to learn by rote at some point.

Do you tune to 400hz or lower?

Oi, stop using those arbitrary units of physics when discussing music.

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.

Are you suggesting some sort of freeform jazz physics?

Are you suggesting some sort of freeform jazz physics?

Whilst that would be nice I'm suggesting that science students also do philosophy, a couple of languages, social sciences, music and art throughout their schooling. In the hope their faculties for creative and original thought are stimulated and flourish.

Edit: at the German school I visit each year they all do music right up to eighteen. French kids do philosophy to eighteen whether they do a scientific, literary or social science BAC.

Philosophy for science students in France:

LE SUJET

La conscience
L'inconscient
Le désir

LA CULTURE

L'art
Le travail et la technique
La religion

LA RAISON ET LE REEL

La démonstration
Le vivant
La matière et l'esprit
La vérité

LE POLITIQUE

La société
La justice et le droit
L'Etat

LA MORALE

La liberté
Le devoir
Le bonheur

Quite a fixed curriculum.

With lots of scope for thought provoking discussion and debate.

Sounds like Baccalaureate stuff to me. To each their own I guess. Not that soft subjects aren't useful (Im an advocate of having at least a second language) but a lot of the time they only lead anywhere for the top percentile of those who study them whilst everyone else retrains for something actually useful. This is also true for specialised STEM subjects as well but they tend to have a much lower intake.

quid a ipsum scientifica methodo

Hang on, I'll be with you in a sec.

"All Gaul is divided into three parts".

?

Whilst that would be nice I'm suggesting that science students also do philosophy, a couple of languages, social sciences, music and art throughout their schooling

Some of my A-level physics students do study one or more of those. I'm not sure how they'd manage all of them while retaining the depth and breadth of study that A levels offer.

What do universities and employers think of reducing the time spent on A-level subjects to do some painting, playing and pontificating?

There are plenty of studies to show that subjects are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. For example, children that live in bilingual environments from an early age benefit academically across the board, not just in languages.

Scientists need literary and communication skills. Good use of English was pretty useful when publishing in peer review. Showing a TV journalist project work required pontificating skills.

Humans respond positively to variety in the stimuli in their environment. Far from being "held back" they will benefit from a multidisciplinary curriculum with cross-disciplinary activities.

Whilst that would be nice I'm suggesting that science students also do philosophy, a couple of languages, social sciences, music and art throughout their schooling. In the hope their faculties for creative and original thought are stimulated and flourish.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I agree with Edukator.

There's not enough blue skies research within science these days, whilst there is an over emphasis on safe science and rote learning within the classroom.

No one, for example, at GCSE level ever bothered to teach me about the scientific method or the enlightenment. You know.....the basics........ that drove western science.

What do universities and employers think of reducing the time spent on A-level subjects to do some painting, playing and pontificating?

Medical schools would like it if students spent more time on arts and crafts as they are currently finding they are getting students who are good at memorizing facts but who are ****ing hopeless in the operating theater.

Painting helps to improve spatial intelligence.

Funny thread.

I'm a guitar teacher. My methodology seems to differ from edukators. That is all.

Guitar tuning is far from fixed

children that live in bilingual environments from an early age benefit academically across the board, not just in languages.

I tend to agree with a broad spectrum of study

Junkyard - lazarus

Artefact. Essentially a bi lingual household tends to be "middle class"

Not convinced that's true, if kids are growing up in a bilingual environment that normally means immigrant, which on average means lower incomes etc. But all sorts of other different reasons to skew the stats o'course

Do you tune to 400hz or lower?

Junior reckons the best guitarists are self taught and even agreed to a quick demo. No compositions for copyright reasons but Sweet Home will be on-line in few minutes.

[url=

Home[/url]

There's not enough blue skies research within science these days

Bollocks.

I'm not even going to expand on that, I shouldn't have to.

Also, double bollocks for using management talk.

NW ...Interesting counter point. I wish i had googled before wading in. You may have a point
This thread needs data and I have things to
Will check back in to see how much i need to apologise/backpedal

Junior reckons the best guitarists are self taught

Nice playing as well From the lad

Bollocks.

I'm not even going to expand on that, I shouldn't have to.

Also, double bollocks for using management talk.

Sir Alec Jeffreys would agree with me.

What do you think Charles Darwin would have written in an impact statement on a grant application for the Beagle voyage if he had to do one today? "I will use this voyage to transform the entire way we think about our origins and our place in the universe". He would be told to **** off, would he not?

This is one of the most depressing threads I've read for a while: save for Edukator wilfully swimming against the tide, so many posters are drearily conventional in their thinking.

Which feels much like the parents' evening I have just attended.

Oh Captain, my Captain....

This is one of the most depressing threads I've read for a while: save for Edukator wilfully swimming against the tide, so many posters are drearily conventional in their thinking.

Which feels much like the parents' evening I have just attended.

Oh Captain, my Captain....

+1

TBH I think Edukator's got a point, but has just set about delivering it in a way that made it seem like he doesn't.

That's what I thought, he just didn't go about making his point the right way.

Medical schools would like it if students spent more time on arts and crafts as they are currently finding they are getting students who are good at memorizing facts but who are **** hopeless in the operating theater.

Medical courses set their own entry requirements - they ask for two science A-levels, which means at least 2/3 of the subjects studied are science-based. I am unaware of one requiring art or philosophy.

That's not to say that they don't look for other skills, but they're not necessarily looking for them in academic subjects.

(But I've only helped three students get onto medicine degrees in the last couple of years, so what do I know?)

This is one of the most depressing threads I've read for a while: save for Edukator wilfully swimming against the tide, so many posters are drearily conventional in their thinking.

Which feels much like the parents' evening I have just attended.

I'm in the arty-farty, wishy-washy, liberal sixth form environment. Pre-16, kids are studying a range of subjects, and they are experiencing art, languages, etc.

Post-16, there just isn't time (or money, mainly money) to encourage wider learning. Until recently, every one of our first years took General Studies, and the higher achievers took Critical Thinking; most of the second years took an additional AS in a wider-ranging but complementary subject, such as Science in Society for science students. We're 'more efficient' now, because of the efficiency savings brought in by our current government, so they're out the window and lots of students who previously would have taken four AS subjects are only taking three.

If you want depressing, head into a "high-performing" secondary school and marvel at everyone being directors, wearing business attire, and teaching to prescribed lesson formats. Then try teaching them afterwards and wondering why they can't do the basics despite being awash with A* grades.

Despite this, Ken Robinson is widely regarded as talking nonsense, by some very good teachers who fight against the tide of management-speak and business suits entering education.

My kids have had a brilliantly creative and inspiring primary education, have absolutely loved pretty much every minute of it, and have done very, very well. I'm hoping secondary continues in the same way (it is so far after one half term), partly because (I think) it's [i]not[/i] an 'outstanding' school.

[quote=Tom_W1987 ]That's what I thought, he just didn't go about making his point the right way.

It's because he's set in his ways

Oh Captain, my Captain....

I wonder if John Keating would have been [url= https://www.ncetm.org.uk/public/files/725865/Ofsted+key+indicators.pdf ]judged outstanding by Ofsted[/url]?

Good points Edukator. None of my family are scientists and yet kids all straight A*ed science GCSEs largely by learning CGP regions guides. "Piece of Pi##" according to both. They worked much, much harder for arts GCSEs and later exams. Granted at A level, science becomes serious.

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.

Climate science anyone ? 😉

pataphysical

I missed that gem earlier. As if metaphysics wasn't bad enough, we've got to go beyond that too?

Anyway, best be off as I've been in work crushing the dreams and creative aspirations of youngsters for 13.5 hours now (after 13 hours yesterday) and I've another day of monotonous recitation of dry facts and equations tomorrow.

Another day of toil in the exam factory.

Just perhaps the over emphasis on arts, has resulted in the huge increase of gay people being so well represented in the artistic and creative areas of society.

A group in society, some parts of the ruling clases deem to pose a threat to their standing.

Are you suggesting this promotion of science is central to their control structures?

lots of money to be made in science related products selling cheap stuff back at high prices to the government by the governmets fundraisers and major company backers.

Of course. That explains it all, don't know how we all missed it.

Quite a few understand the concept and fight against the controls the present government is using to manipulate the markets .

and quite a few are so thick they dont understand or fail to do anything.

Much as I hate to defend 1. A Tory and 2. An Education Sec, but isnt she just saying if you are not sure what you want to do try and stay broad. Seems like fairly good advice to me.

Medical courses set their own entry requirements - they ask for two science A-levels, which means at least 2/3 of the subjects studied are science-based. I am unaware of one requiring art or philosophy.

That's not to say that they don't look for other skills, but they're not necessarily looking for them in academic subjects.

(But I've only helped three students get onto medicine degrees in the last couple of years, so what do I know?)

My opinion was based on surgeons complaining in articles. What do they know?

Surgeons complaining that the training they are giving is not suitable? Its much easier to blame others.

Surgeons complaining about their students lacking skills going into university.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Medical schools would like it if students spent more time on arts and crafts

They'd love it if students spent [i]time[/i] on that. They just don't want to see them doing it at school, let alone at A level. Frankly english university entry criteria are one of the chief things forcing students into narrow moulds. 3 A levels of which one must be maths and one must be the relevant science, and preferrably the 3rd also a science. It's hard to find a uni that accepts critical thinking or general studies as counting for anything at all.

But then there's chicken and egg here- when most of your applicants have 3 or 4 a levels you have to look for the specialists, they can't afford to have dead wood or less relevant qualifications.

The scottish system makes it almost impossible for a higher/advanced higher student to be as specialised as an a level student. But inevitably, at the cost of them being less educated in their chosen field. Ironically a scottish applicant to an english uni will often find several of their highers simply ignored, once you've got your fistful of As and Bs any more are surplus to requirements

Those surgeons should add a "knowledge of pataphysics" to their entry requirements.

Medical schools would like it if students spent more time on arts and crafts as they are currently finding they are getting students who are good at memorizing facts but who are **** hopeless in the operating theater.

Painting helps to improve spatial intelligence.

Can I see a source for this claim ?

It seems odd that people who have input into the criteria required for a course would complain that it students lack x and y and then not ask for x and y

thanks

What do you think Charles Darwin would have written in an impact statement on a grant application for the Beagle voyage if he had to do one today? "I will use this voyage to transform the entire way we think about our origins and our place in the universe". He would be told to **** off, would he not?

*sigh*

Again showing wilful ignorance. I could list a lot of "blue sky" projects but I'll use just one since it's been nothing but unconventional from the get-go.

[img] [/img]

Perhaps not earth-shatteringly new technologies but still advancing. If you really want game changers, how about fusion? Close to becoming a commercial reality. Or nanotechnology, the possibilities there are endless and being refined all the time (the stuff that is actually feasible rather than the sci-fi nonsense).

All of these have had vast amounts of money thrown at them both public and private. So as for your question? Once again, bol.....

If you really want game changers, how about fusion? Close to becoming a commercial reality. Or nanotechnology

Weird that scientists came up with these ideas, what with being so closed minded and uncreative and all.

Close to becoming a commercial reality.

Hah!

Ahaha.

ARRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHH!

Again showing wilful ignorance. I could list a lot of "blue sky" projects but I'll use just one since it's been nothing but unconventional from the get-go.

Can I see a source for this claim ?

It seems odd that people who have input into the criteria required for a course would complain that it students lack x and y and then not ask for x and y

thanks

Sorry Junkyard, I can't find the link right now. It's been annoying me for the past 30 minutes.

The company who said, this year, that fusion would be a reality in five years, said it would be four years a year ago 🙂

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/for-journalists/copy_of_25th-anniversary-of-dna-fingerprinting/interview-with-professor-sir-alec-jeffreys-1/the-value-of-blue-skies-research

He admits that this seems a far cry from the clear, real-world applications of DNA fingerprinting. “This is absolutely unashamed blue skies research, which I love,” he says. “And I have never lost sight of that all through that monstrous inversion of my life – fun but monstrous – of charging off into the frenzied world and then coming back out of it again. In the background I’ve always kept this fundamental research going.”

While the research councils seem to be doing their best to keep blue skies research going, “I’m not sure the Government have full got that message”, he says. And he can’t stress enough how important the message is. From Fleming’s discovery of penicillin after a Petri dish was accidentally left next to a window, to Jeffreys’ own entirely unexpected discovery of DNA fingerprinting at five past nine on that September morning when at five to nine he hadn’t a single thought of DNA fingerprinting in his head, “unfettered, fundamental, curiosity-driven research is the ultimate engine of all scientific and technological evolution,” he says. “You lose that at your peril.”

He is critical of trying to set too many priorities and strategies in research because it tends to direct research to “known unknowns” -- establishing and solving the obvious problems. While he acknowledges that this is important, so is solving problems you didn’t even know existed. And these are the kinds of problems far less likely to be solved by industry.

Focusing on known unknowns has become increasingly tempting for science anyway because it has become so specialised, argues Jeffreys. Gone is the Victorian gentleman scientist who was an expert botanist, paleantologist, geologist, physician, mathematician. Instead, biology, like particle physics before it, is evolving towards larger and larger teams of scientists, each specialising in a particular aspect of any experiment. The average number of authors on a paper has ballooned to film credit lengths, he says. “What they are doing is delivering research which is to some extent predictable because otherwise you would never set up this gigantic organisation in the first place.”

Typical of the new science is the Human Genome Project, which, he argues, while clearly being very valuable is “basically factory science”. “I’m saying you have to have a mixed economy. You don’t put all your eggs into this great common basket that will deliver answers to questions that you can define because the far more exciting thing is that it delivers questions that you never knew existed, and that to me is infinitely more valuable because that sets the future agenda.”

Are any scientists against blue sky research? (Even if they hate the management consultant phrase.)

I can't find the link right now. It's been annoying me for the past 30 minutes

Tom, what exactly was so funny in my post? Care to share your learned reasoning on why you would infer that I was hilariously wrong?

If you're interested in creativity it's worth reading around the obituraries for Alexander Grothendieck that are now appearing - He died last Thursday. [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11231703/Alexander-Grothendieck-obituary.html ]Here's one from the telegraph[/url].

He was one of the greatest and most influential mathematicians of the 20th century, who turned his back on the scientific establishment and went to live in the woods at a time when his reputation was at its highest. His work will be inaccessible to most of us, but there are quotes that give insight into the sort of intellectual fearlessness that enabled him to dent the mathematical universe - his rising sea approach to theory building.