37 
If you want to be a world leader in science and technology, it’s important that your kids learn all about the science that makes technology work, right? Physics forms the backbone of our understanding of the universe, but our high school physics curriculum are more than a little lacking when it comes to things from the past 150 years.
MinutePhysics explains the situation perfectly in this open letter to the US President, and while its hard to imagine Obama sitting down and watching YouTube videos, maybe the message will get to the right people sometime, somehow. Do you think any of it is relevant here in the UK, or have we got the better end of the stick with our education? Tell us below, or go bone up on some physics. [YouTube]
YouTube goes Educational -- Schools Channel Launches
Old Maps Layered on Google Maps: Where Were You in High School Geography?
How 17 High School Students' Facebook Pictures Ended Up on a Child Porn Site
Kids, especially girls are afraid of Physics in High school and therefore seldom take it up to A-Level. My Parents have been both teachers for more than 30 years and even they see this on a regular basis. It isn’t hard so to speak but there is quite a bit to get around when studying it.
Do kids do that cool stuff here? My high school education ended 12 years ago and we only touched very lightly on quantum mechanics, and that was only because my teachers were awesome. We were never tested on it. This was in South Africa then in Singapore
As someone who just finished A-level Physics last year, we study nearly all of the stuff Americans don’t study. A-level Physics is truly fascinating, and so is some of GCSE Physics. Unfortunately, there is enough of a taboo about Physics being basically Maths, that people either don’t take it at GCSE, or get scared off by basic multiplication at GCSE. What he doesn’t explain is that you do need to study High-school level Maths at least, to understand the concepts, and while that’s fascinating for me, it does mean that 2/3rds of your 3 A-level choices are gone. The curriculum isn’t the problem, it’s the nature of Physics itself. Unfortunately. The mass equivalency, astrophysics and photonics modules were my favourites.
I love all of Minute Physics’ videos and think they do a lot to promote the wider understanding of Physics, but is the start of this video meant to hold a certain sense of irony?
The telephone was invented by a Scot – Alexander Graham Bell (though potentially stolen from the Italian inventor Meucci). Where as the first computer (Konrad Zuse) was fabricated at Bletchley Park during WW2.
Why not mention fantastic truly American inventions such as the laser and the atomic bomb?
Atomic bomb – run by German scientists. Laser – theorised by Einstein, a Frenchman won a Nobel Prize for his treatment, although an American did develop the first commercially viable device, winning another prize for it. Very little early work was done by straight Americans.
What about bent Americans?
I didn’t mean gay vs straight! I meant outright Americans, i.e. Americans who have American parents. (Yes, I know, a colony e.t.c)
I know what you mean. To be honest with you, those were the best I could come up with!
the video has a link to a uk channel which i have been watching, called Sixty Symbols, very interesting
http://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols
As a physicist myself i do agree with both the above and sixtysymbols take. I do think our education here in the uk does do a bit better, however they do trade breadth with depth . The collective dumming down of both maths and physics the so called “Hard” subjects has eroded the the A levels and GCSEs to a level at which most things need to be handled by first year undergraduate to catch people up. This is a bad situation to be in, yes physics and mathematics are hard but they cant just be slashed to multiple choice to improve pass rates. Most joining undergrad physics today will spend their entire first year doing mathematics which can be demoralising.
There is definitely a problem here, because whilst i think its better for the general populous to understand more higher physics concepts, the mathematics is beyond them and only acts to cloud their understanding. So do you teach science concepts in a verbal way for understanding? or science in a mathematical rigorous way for further study. Currently schools try their best but fall more on the former but then undergrad hits them like a tonne of bricks when they need more maths. Personally i think its a failing in maths as much as physics as old O-level maths was harder than current A level
Having finished A-levels last year, I truly don’t see how it’s dumbed down. GCSEs are simplified, but they’re meant to be, to give the breadth. A-levels give you depth. I look at my A-level syllabus, compare it with that 10-20 years ago, and it’s got more content, not less. Most things need to be handled at undergrad level because the approaches by different exam boards are different, and the undergrads need a unified approach. Not because content is missing. Maths A-level is one of the best-run A-levels in the country, it offers 3 tiers of Maths. In Physics, it is now possible to study every single one of those concepts mentioned as unavailable to Americans, and without anything more than a knowledge of multiplication. Truly, A-levels are getting harder, just people are getting the approach to exams better sorted. People are getting better.
I don’t agree on many points.
Firstly maths is alot changed from old, if u look at old O-levels matrices and imaginary numbers were all taught before undergrad now they are not further maths is required and this is not just my view as having a high school maths teacher in the family for about 30 years i have been privy and witness to the year on year changes of the syllabus that have occurred and having a university lecturer of science in the family i can also tell you that year on year the entry level understanding of maths has fallen and the universities have had to pick up the slack. So i know with certainty maths standard has dropped and any lecturer in physics will tell you the same
now as for physics specifically yes the breadth has increased and you do have a certain amount of depth. It is much better than the american system i agree. however its not just the material its the way its taught, as you said you need no more than multiplication for a reason… the harder stuff is left out. Having studied a lot more in the field i can tell you there is more depth than available. I guess i should qualify what i think is lacking.
I think its 2 fold experimentation is very lacking in high school, more often than not instructions are given on how each step is done and the exploration for self learning is missing. Having taught undergraduate laboratories i know this more than most and see students with little to know practical skills or knowledge of how to justify and experiment themselves. In my school i saw this as well lucky one of my two A level physics teachers had a doctorate and would approach experiments by saying “right class here i have a spring find its spring constant using any or all of the equipment in front of you” that was it and you had to decide how and then he would at the end examine your critical thinking. there isnt enough of this.
Secondly exams unless you take triple science are multiple choice (or at least where last time i checked) and where as in the past you would see complex worded questions which meant the student had to think how to answer and engage critical thinking, nowadays things require memory of formulae only and then plug in numbers. that critical thinking is missing.
As for your final statements, that people are getting better at approaches to passing them and smarter as well. Firstly getting a better exam approach is my point entirely about the problems. Do you learn to pass the exam or learn the subject? in my experience the two are opposite and we are moving to just teaching to pass exams without the connections and thinking that supports them. by the way this is a massive problem in asian countries like china and Singapore, they are very very good at exams and their tuition is focused entirely on passing the exams and more often than not the undergrads have no idea how to do things they haven’t been shown before or even begin to approach them. that is why they like western universities and degrees as they think they can get these critical thinking skills. By the way im speaking of my experience and views of asian friends and not trying to be racist, as generally they have done alot more maths than western high school graduates and it has been drilled the way maths should be.
and finally people are just getting smarter…. well whilst genetically maybe a little, not on the year by year basis and extent that the exams tell as a researcher with many many years statistical analysis skills i can tell you that is unlikely and is most likely a product of having competing exam boards setting exams where they know schools will buy into them if they get better results.
Okay, I agree with your first paragraph, but not the second; there’s only so much you can teach in two years, especially since the course isn’t actually two years, it’s two lots of one year, which makes a massive difference to revision and breaking up modules. I completely agree with experimentation, if everyone wanted to be a professor. But the degree and A-levels have to account for those (like me) who are simply doing a Science degree because they enjoy Science, and don’t necessarily want to do research. I did Triple Science, so I can’t speak for Double Science, but I remember being surprised at how thick Double Scientists could be. My school was private and focused on teaching us as opposed to teaching us how to pass, but I am well aware that state colleges teach people to pass rather than to learn.
And finally, fair enough, it’s not possible to comment on changing intelligence. One change I will concede, is a much shorter attention span. But increased motility can only be good for the world, yes?
I think you like myself then have been lucky to receive good quality high school education and whilst there are always bright smart and good quality school leavers at one end of the spectrum, that is not necessarily the general. I do agree the splitting of the A level into AS and A2 has meant that the course is more time limited than before and time has been taking away to study for the AS exams part way through
I just thank my Mum for making me study for the 11+ exams so I could get a 50% bursary, the schools in my area are alright, but the one I got into was amazing comparatively. The quality at Bath is equally high (my Uni), the lowest entry grade for any course is AAB, my course was A*AA, so maybe I just haven’t seen the lower end of the spectra.
What kind of school/college did you attend? Was it state funded or did you have to pay?
Actually i was very very lucky i was in one of the top state schools in the country that out performed many private schools and so no i didn’t pay. But i was able to take triple science with some very skilled teachers which alot of schools do not have.
And how did you get there? Does kids go to school near their houses or are there other criteria?
I ask because I’m moving to UK next february and might decide to stay for good and raise kids there.
Cheers!
Ah ok. well there are many types of schools here in the UK.
there are private schools you pay for.
state schools which you don’t and come in many flavours and varieties from faith based, academies, state entirely controlled ones and free schools (free meaning free to make what ever rules they want lol)
unfortunately there is a many page document on the criteria allowed and not allowed, and schools and boroughs can make their own minds up, so i’m reliably informed its a can of worms.
however there are general things that most schools use. catchment areas is the most common one, meaning yes the closest school. However the more over subscribed the school the smaller and smaller that area.
Siblings already in the school is another criteria usually and they are also legally obliged to take students from care homes or.
About 10% can be selected on ability too if they are state schools and if its a specialist school specialising in say history it can request those 10% be students with good history marks.
Some schools also have feeder schools, were an allowance of places are given for specific middle or junior schools.
But each school should publish their criteria on their website which should make things easier a bit to look up the ones your interested in.
Hope thats not too confusing
Cheers mate! British education system had amused me since 2004 when, while studying English at London, I was working at the conference rooms of a hotel.
I saw state school professors discussing topics such as “how to teach kids that are more visual/oral/hands on oriented” and that made it clear to me they where decades ahead of the teachers in my country (even though I went to an expensive private school).