Geology and Science dropping off the SACE curriculum

[kinetic (Steve)]

See here:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/geolog...-1226123969085

.... geology had also been affected by the introduction of the new SA Certificate of Education, in which it is no longer compulsory to study a science subject up to Year 12."

awesome......
Steve

[renormalised (Carl)]

Absolutely ridiculous.....what are these idiots trying to do to the students, society even. Science...."oh you don't need to do it if you don't want to", and next minute we'll have a society who can't even figure out how to make a cup of coffee. Wait a minute, yes they will, they'll take a barista's course and then go become a "highly paid" endentured slave for overseas tourists in a coffee shop.

Really smart of them....

And then, this idiot, the education minister. Listen to this....quote,

Education Minister Jay Weatherill said the challenge was to inspire students to choose subjects that would lead towards mining."The sorts of secondary school subjects that will lead to mining industry careers go well beyond students' choice of geology alone," he said.

"The State Government has put a major focus on boosting the study of maths and science subjects through a range of initiatives in primary and secondary school."


He said the State Government would invest $194 million to create an extra 100,000 training places over the next six years.

It's amazing, the mind of a politician...they can't even see the vital importance of science to society and what it has given us, and yet they seem to think that by making it non compulsory that it's going to make it, somehow, better for the education of the students and for society.

There's more to learning science (or any subject) other than getting a job. That's not what education is about. If all it was about was working and finding a job, you could start work the minute you finished primary school. You don't need algebra and calculus to be a brickie's TA or a waiter, or even a carpenter etc. The whole idea of education is to give the kids an appreciation for the world around them, to enrich their lives by giving them the tools to go out and do what they want to do, to give society (and the kids) a strong base of knowledge from which to work from, not to prepare them for a job. They're not cogs in a machine, although that's what they're being treated as by these fools.

This whole society is screwed up....no wonder it's as dysfunctional as it is.

[renormalised (Carl)]

100000 training places....for what jobs??? How many jobs in the mining industry does this drongo think they can fill, or even produce, in 6 years??!!!. No good having haulpack drivers, drillers, miners and such if you don't have the geologists to find the stuff in the first place, or mining engineers to figure out the design of the pits or underground shafts. It's a complete reverse on the saying "too many chiefs, not enough indians".

Might be a good idea to be cutting back on the number of politicians we've got.

[Terry B]

I can't comment about SA but it is certainly not compulsory to study any sciences beyond yr 10 in NSW. My son who is studying for his HSC has chosen not to do any sciences. He does 4 units of English plus history, maths etc. Despite both of his parents being scientists ( of sorts), this is what he chose. Clearly studying sciences is not for everyone at HSC level and it would be counterproductive to have it compulsory.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Terry B

I can't comment about SA but it is certainly not compulsory to study any sciences beyond yr 10 in NSW. My son who is studying for his HSC has chosen not to do any sciences. He does 4 units of English plus history, maths etc. Despite both of his parents being scientists ( of sorts), this is what he chose. Clearly studying sciences is not for everyone at HSC level and it would be counterproductive to have it compulsory.

Hi Terry;

Your above post is totally awesome.
I hope the decision was reached with much respect on both sides ?

If education truly is about developing the base skills to exercise the freedom of choice over one's own future, then it sounds like your son may have achieved that goal in Year 10. (I could imagine much discomfort for you parents ..)

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

In WA it is compulsory to study Science in year 11 and 12 with the exception of some specialist courses. I suppose if this was going to happen I am glad that my son has the exposure in science as he is interested in Geology.

Bit disappointing though that science is considered less important seeing most labour intensive skills are shipping offshore most opportunities in the future will be science based.

[Rob_K]

No surprises there. History (the past) has already been dumped, science (the future) is being ditched - we want lots of ignorant people living in the present and buying stuff.

Cheers -

[CraigS]

Why is the lack of a 'compulsory curriculum', being equated to ignorance ?

The only issue I see here, is that it is becoming difficult to study Geology, if one chooses to.

It can still be studied however, if desired.

Compulsory curriculums do not necessarily circumvent ignorance.

Cheers

[Rob_K]

Craig, ignorance is simply not knowing about, through lack of exposure to. I don't know what connotations you are putting on it.

Exposure doesn't guarantee understanding, but provides a platform for understanding.

Cheers -

[marki]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

In WA it is compulsory to study Science in year 11 and 12 with the exception of some specialist courses. I suppose if this was going to happen I am glad that my son has the exposure in science as he is interested in Geology.

Bit disappointing though that science is considered less important seeing most labour intensive skills are shipping offshore most opportunities in the future will be science based.

Actually Malcom it is not compulsory to study science in the last two years in WA. You must simply have a list A (maths/science) and list B subject (humanities/english etc). Many students pick the lowest level maths to cover the list A requirement (about year 9 level maths when I was at school) and fill the rest with artsy fartsy subjects. English is no longer taught in the senior years and has been replaced with sociology under the guise on english. This has been coming for a long time as english and maths are seen to be the only subjects of any importance both in current State Curriculum and the incoming Australian Curriculum. Why? it will be linked to funding of course based on those wonderful naplan benchmark tests (literacy and numeracy only). I went to a PD on the national model last week and the recommended time allocation per subject presented had both maths and english with a minimum of 5 hours per week whilst science was only deemed to be worth 2 -3 hours a week (the same as PE, metalwork, childcare, cooking etc). This is something science teachers have been fighting for years but it just falls on deaf ears. It is up to science teachers to fully engage their students and get them interested enough that they are willing to take science on at a senior school level. If we fail to do this then as has happened with geology in SA, the sciences will slowy die here as well.

Mark

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

Craig, ingnorance is simply not knowing about, through lack of exposure to. I don't know what connotations you are putting on it.

Exposure doesn't guarantee understanding, but provides a platform for understanding.

The acquisition of knowledge starts with the willingness to acquire it, to be aware of it, to acknowledge the existence of it, to recognise that it is there to be gotten, and to appreciate how it expands us.
True ignorance is failing to experience this ... and has nothing to do with compulsory curriculums.

Cheers

[Rob_K]

Of course Craig, you are right and I am wrong.

Cheers -

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

Of course Craig, you are right and I am wrong.

Cheers -

Not at all, Rob ! Both perspectives go hand-in-hand, and your views are much appreciated.
I'm quite passionate about recognising the role we all play by accepting responsibility for our own (and our kids') learning. The education systems we have will always be flawed in some way or another.
I'll never stop looking for ways of not using it as an excuse for ignorance.
Seems to me, the most effective method is to 'get in touch' with where it all starts.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Terry B

I can't comment about SA but it is certainly not compulsory to study any sciences beyond yr 10 in NSW. My son who is studying for his HSC has chosen not to do any sciences. He does 4 units of English plus history, maths etc. Despite both of his parents being scientists ( of sorts), this is what he chose. Clearly studying sciences is not for everyone at HSC level and it would be counterproductive to have it compulsory.

What does he intend to do after school??. If he goes to uni, what field does he want to get into??

[Greg Bryant]

Back in 1987, when I did the HSC (NSW's Yr 12 exam), the only compulsory subject was English. A friend of mine in my year (we did primary school and high school together) dropped all maths and science after Yr 10 and focused on English and Economics (which I did with him), and History and languages (I on the other hand dropped History and Latin and continued on with Maths, Physics, and Chemistry. I dropped Geography much to the horror of the Geography staff). My friend topped the state in the HSC.

He went on to become speech writer for Kim Beazley when he was Opposition leader, and economics advisor and speech writer for Kevin and for Julia when they were PM. He quit Canberra late last year (had enough!) and is now working in New York (unrelated to his Canberra role).

I studied Economics at University and found the methodology quite comparable to science. We might bemoan the apparent lack of science input at government levels, but I think there is an underlying current there.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Some people aren't cut out to do science and others don't want to do it...that's fair enough. With senior school, most of the science taught is individual subject fields, so you really can't make them compulsory. However, if they make science an elective subject any earlier than Year 11 (so, 10 and below) it will be a huge mistake. The problem is science has gotten a bad wrap culturally and in the media. That's why kids don't like it and think it's for nerds etc. What they don't realise is that everything they have is all due to science. Also, parents shouldn't foster their own prejudices, as far as learning goes, onto their kids. Kids should be guided in their learning, but allowed to achieve their best in those areas they're good at. Not forced into doing something just because it's going to be a good and well paid job.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Me, personally, I find that it puts people off if I use the word "science" when I characterise my hobbies.

I think that the phrase "natural philosophy" should be brought back into use.
The word "science" is a new one, and it says little about what scientists actually do.

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Some people aren't cut out to do science and others don't want to do it...that's fair enough. With senior school, most of the science taught is individual subject fields, so you really can't make them compulsory. However, if they make science an elective subject any earlier than Year 11 (so, 10 and below) it will be a huge mistake. The problem is science has gotten a bad wrap culturally and in the media. That's why kids don't like it and think it's for nerds etc. What they don't realise is that everything they have is all due to science. Also, parents shouldn't foster their own prejudices, as far as learning goes, onto their kids. Kids should be guided in their learning, but allowed to achieve their best in those areas they're good at. Not forced into doing something just because it's going to be a good and well paid job.

Carl it is a lot more complex. With both parents working to pay the bills kids are often left to their own devices devoid of any real guidance or cognitive stimulation. Much of the movement away from science can be attributed to such fine baby sitters as Bart Simpson, the fact they have to make an effort to succeed and most importantly an ultra dumbed down curriculum which is about as exicting as watching a coconut grow (thanks to insurance companies and the paranoia of being sued). Add to that the huge wages payed to research scientists (not) and a society motivated only by wealth acquisition and you have your answer. In my experience the best science talent always take up engineering as there are better pay rates. But most dont bother here as to gain professional qualifications is wasting good money earning time in the mines of WA. Why study at all when you can earn twice as much as most professionals with no more then a 1 day crash course in site safety (get your green card) and a truck licence. Mention "study hard for a good career" and kids just look at you as you were a bloody idiot, probably right as well. Someone else can come up with the clever stuff, they just need the money to buy it.

Mark

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by marki

Carl it is a lot more complex. With both parents working to pay the bills kids are often left to their own devices devoid of any real guidance or cognitive stimulation. Much of the movement away from science can be attributed to such fine baby sitters as Bart Simpson, the fact they have to make an effort to succeed and most importantly an ultra dumbed down curriculum which is about as exicting as watching a coconut grow (thanks to insurance companies and the paranoia of being sued). Add to that the huge wages payed to research scientists (not) and a society motivated only by wealth acquisition and you have your answer. In my experience the best science talent always take up engineering as there are better pay rates. But most dont bother here as to gain professional qualifications is wasting good money earning time in the mines of WA. Why study at all when you can earn twice as much as most professionals with no more then a 1 day crash course in site safety (get your green card) and a truck licence. Mention "study hard for a good career" and kids just look at you as you were a bloody idiot, probably right as well. Someone else can come up with the clever stuff, they just need the money to buy it.

Mark

Mark, I know how complex the situation is. We've both touched on similar and different points in so far as what is occurring. Like I said, this society and political/economic system we live by is completely dysfunctional. We're tearing ourselves apart to sate the greed of a minority who couldn't give a rat's if this planet fell to pieces and everyone went down the gurgler with it. Just so long as they get by and end up top dog. The rest are just being fooled into believing they've never had it so good, when in fact they're being manipulated into acting like parasites (and generally falling for it). It has to stop, otherwise we're not going to last the next century or so.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Me, personally, I find that it puts people off if I use the word "science" when I characterise my hobbies.

I think that the phrase "natural philosophy" should be brought back into use.
The word "science" is a new one, and it says little about what scientists actually do.

Actually, science says everything about what a scientist does. Science. That includes theoretical and empirical studies, philosophy etc etc.

Natural philosophy could mean anything and is a rather ambiguous term in any case.

The term science only puts people off because of the cultural connotations that have been hung upon it.