double or triple science

Discussion and advice on GCSEs

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

Daogroupie
Posts: 11099
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Herts

Re: double or triple science

Post by Daogroupie »

Is it true that girls do better at Science at single sex schools?

I hear it so much from parents as a reason to send girls to single sex schools. DG
Tinkers
Posts: 7240
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 2:05 pm
Location: Reading

Re: double or triple science

Post by Tinkers »

I think it’s more a case if they are more likely to take sciences further than do better.
Guest55
Posts: 16254
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:21 pm

Re: double or triple science

Post by Guest55 »

I'm not sure that's even true - it depends on the school.

Some mixed schools have an even gender spread in science and humanities.
Amber
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

Re: double or triple science

Post by Amber »

At coeducational schools, there was a statistically significant gap favouring females, while at single-sex schools there was a non-significant gap favouring males. This pattern was apparent for educational achievement both at high school and in tertiary education. These results indicate that single-sex schooling may mitigate male disadvantages in educational achievement. (New Zealand research, 2008)
Academic self‐concept was found to be highly gendered, even controlling for prior test scores. Boys had higher self‐concepts in mathematics and science, and girls in English. Single‐sex schooling reduced the gender gap in self‐concept, while selective schooling was linked to lower academic self‐concept overall. (UK research, 2000)
anotherdad
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:33 pm

Re: double or triple science

Post by anotherdad »

Daogroupie wrote:First the school and next you will hear it from the parents as soon as they find out your dd is not going to do Sciences at A level.

"Why isn't your daughter doing Sciences?"

"I am amazed to hear you have let your daughter do Arts subjects. I thought she was bright."
That is very much the story at my daughter's school among some parents, and seems to be particularly prevalent among some cultures and backgrounds. There are a disproportionate number of students with Asian or African heritage studying sciences and maths at A level, where careers in medicine and medicine-related subjects are family expectations and anything else is considered a lesser option. The "Asian Five" (chemistry, biology, physics, maths and further maths) is held in particularly high esteem by those parents, even though I'm not sure it's an option at the school any more. "Only four A levels? Your cousin is doing five. At 14. You need to work harder."
Surferfish
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: double or triple science

Post by Surferfish »

Amber wrote:Why is science considered to be so important, so vital, so rigorous etc? The unchallenged rise of science as the Only Right Way is starting to bother me. It is creeping into everything as we seek to make things which we used to accept were not measurable, measurable. As my daughter says, science has the answers, but it is people who stop those answers being applied. There is still hunger, still disease, still poverty. Not because we don't know how to cure them, but because we don't cure them. Churning out more and more scientists is not going to solve the world's problems.
mad? wrote:Instead we have this race to science when let's face it, we can already see what a complete lack of knowledge of history (repeating itself) is doing to our country/the world right now , Let alone a broad/basic understanding of philosophy/ geography Sorry Friday night rant.
I'm sorry but this idea that the world needs less natural scientists and more social science and humanity graduates is just ridiculous. It isn't natural scientists who are to blame for the worlds problems. Its governments and politicians.

Why don't we just have a look at the university degrees of some of those in power who've helped shape the state of our country and the wider world in recent years.

Theresa May - Geography
David Cameron - PPE
Gordon Brown - History
Tony Blair - Law
Boris Johnson - Classics
Jeremy Hunt - PPE
Michael Gove - English
Amber Rudd - History
G W Bush - History
Barack Obama - Political Science
Donald Trump - Economics

I could go on, but the evidence seems pretty clear. Left or right, UK or US, good or bad, there is one common factor they all share. Those in power who have made the decisions in recent years that result in the continuation of poverty, disease, war and the pollution of our planet, overwhelmingly have degrees in social sciences, humanities and arts. There is not a single natural scientist amongst any of them.

How can you possibly say that a lack of knowledge of social science and humanities is the cause of the world's problems when all of those in power have been educated in those subjects to the highest level at the best universities in the world?

We have more than enough social science and humanity graduates making the decisions that mess up the world already IMO. What we need is more natural scientists. They surely couldn't do any worse than that lot could they?! :shock:

https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/only-9-of ... a-problem/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://subtleengine.org/2014/06/28/mps ... they-know/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Amber
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

Re: double or triple science

Post by Amber »

Surferfish wrote:How can you possibly say that a lack of knowledge of social science and humanities is the cause of the world's problems when all of those in power have been educated in those subjects to the highest level at the best universities in the world?
Is anyone saying that?
Bazelle
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:14 pm
Location: London

Re: double or triple science

Post by Bazelle »

I hear all the posts about valuing humanities and languages more, and top jobs, even in science, will go to people who can express themselves clearly both verbally and in writing, with a wealth of general knowledge. However, at the end of the day, why are top schools insisting that children prepare for the triple award and less academic schools or some girls schools (not all) not that bothered? Pure sexism IMO.
loobylou
Posts: 2032
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:04 pm

Re: double or triple science

Post by loobylou »

I don't think people are saying that. I'm certainly not. I value sciences myself (I did 4 science A levels). But what I value more is students being able to make choices without being made to feel that those decisions are worth less than others. My dd is excellent at science but that doesn't mean she wants to choose them for A level/degree/career.
Surferfish
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: double or triple science

Post by Surferfish »

Amber wrote:
Surferfish wrote:How can you possibly say that a lack of knowledge of social science and humanities is the cause of the world's problems when all of those in power have been educated in those subjects to the highest level at the best universities in the world?
Is anyone saying that?
Well mad? certainly seemed to be.
mad? wrote: we can already see what a complete lack of knowledge of history (repeating itself) is doing to our country/the world right now , Let alone a broad/basic understanding of philosophy/ geography
And you yourself seem to be making the point that we focus too much on education in natural science and not enough on social science/humanities and that this is somehow the reason for problems in society and the world.

I would argue the opposite. It is a lack of basic scientific knowledge and principles (particularly by those in power) that is the cause of many of these problems.

Consider the wonderful Mr Trump who studied economics at university. A social science.
He decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change because he thought it would undermine the US economy. That's exactly how you would expect an economist to think, from an economic point of view. Whereas if he'd had a better background and understanding of natural science he would understand what effect pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would have on our planet and would have behaved completely differently.

And what about Brexit? Perhaps if the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove had degrees in a natural science they would have learnt to draw logical conclusions from data and evidence and would have deduced that Britain leaving the EU was not such a good idea. As almost every natural scientist I can think of did.

Don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against people studying humanities and social science if that is their interest. Its just that to claim that these subjects are somehow undervalued and under-represented just doesn't follow when you consider that these are the degrees that seem to get people into positions of power and influence.
Post Reply
11 Plus Platform - Online Practice Makes Perfect - Try Now