Anybody surprised by this.

Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics teachers
into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!

Dave

On Jun 30, 1:41 pm, D...@Nothere.com wrote:
> Anybody surprised by this.
>
> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics teachers
> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
> eacgers]
I can't comment about [would-be] Biology teachers, however someone I
know couldn't get a job in the UK Chemicals business with his
chemistry degree and is now a Civil Engineer.

wrote in message 
news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
> Anybody surprised by this.
>
> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics 
> teachers
> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>
> Dave
>

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g4aoc7$49i$1@news.albasani.net...
>
>  wrote in message
> news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
> > Anybody surprised by this.
> >
> > Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics
> > teachers
> > into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!

I know a guy who got a masters degree in Geology and couldn't get a proper
job so he ended up joining the police!

wrote in message 
news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
> Anybody surprised by this.
> Teaching Science as a single subject seams ...

.... seamless integration into the mediocrity that is General Science.

When I passed the 11+ and went up to the grammar school, in the
first year onwards we had to study chemistry, physics and biology as
separate subjects, along with English, mathematics, history, geography,
art, French, make-believe (AKA RE), music, PE and metalwork.

In the second year we had to take up another foreign language.

In the fourth year we chose our 'O' level subjects.

"Theo"  wrote in message 
news:lA5ak.140953$8k.91647@newsfe18.ams2...
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g4aoc7$49i$1@news.albasani.net...
>>  wrote in message
>> news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>> > Anybody surprised by this.
>> >
>> > Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics
>> > teachers into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology 
>> > teachers went!
>
> I know a guy who got a masters degree in Geology and couldn't get a proper
> job so he ended up joining the police!
>
>
I know a guy who was a tech at RR aero engines Leavesden near Watford,
which closed.
He's now an interviewer at the Watford Job Centre.

Steve Terry

"Theo"  wrote in message 
news:lA5ak.140953$8k.91647@newsfe18.ams2...
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g4aoc7$49i$1@news.albasani.net...
>>  wrote in message
>> news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>> > Anybody surprised by this.
>> > Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics
>> > teachers
>> > into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
> I know a guy who got a masters degree in Geology and couldn't get a proper
> job so he ended up joining the police!

So he still didn't get a proper job, as do not teachers ...

"Those that can, do.
Those that can't, teach.
Those that can't teach, teach PE.
Those that can't teach PE, join the plods.
Those that can't plod, join the traffic plods.
Those that can't traffic plod, are on sale on the vegetable rack in Tescos.
Those that are too rotten for the vegetable rack in Tesco, take out licences 
intended for 6-year-olds.
Those that can't reach the intellectual and educational attainments intended 
for 6-year-olds
become Plastic Plods, AKA Community Support Officers.
Those that can't even do that, subscribe to this NG as Mrs.Nugatory and the 
Numpty Trucker
and spend all day crying on each others' shoulders"

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:57:40 +0100, "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>In the fourth year we chose our 'O' level subjects.

In the fourth year I had already taken my separate Chemistry, Biology and
Physics O Levels.  I had also done Mathematics a year earlier.   Went on to do
my A levels early as well. Total of 12 O levels, 5 A levels and a degree.But
what relevance is something done nearly 40 years ago today.

Lets keep the topic up to date.

wrote in message 
news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
> Anybody surprised by this.
>
> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics 
> teachers
> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!

Actually, it isn't as simple as that. Many schools still actually teach the 
sciences as three distinct subjects, ie they may  be time-tabled as science 
but the lessons will be allocated to perhaps physics for x weeks, followed 
by biology for y weeks etc. All in all, the time spent on each subject will 
be much the same as if they were timetabled as separate subjects. It can 
also allow better cross subject links to develop.

Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should be 
within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A level 
it can get a bit more tricky.

As you can imagine, this topic was the talk of the staff room today. The 
consensus was that this was merely the current fad the Gov. had latched 
onto.

-- 
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

Brian Reay wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>> Anybody surprised by this.
>>
>> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics 
>> teachers
>> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>
>Actually, it isn't as simple as that. Many schools still actually teach the 
>sciences as three distinct subjects, ie they may  be time-tabled as science 
>but the lessons will be allocated to perhaps physics for x weeks, followed 
>by biology for y weeks etc. All in all, the time spent on each subject will 
>be much the same as if they were timetabled as separate subjects. It can 
>also allow better cross subject links to develop.
>
>Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should be 
>within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A level 
>it can get a bit more tricky.
>
>As you can imagine, this topic was the talk of the staff room today. The 
>consensus was that this was merely the current fad the Gov. had latched 
>onto.

Unless it is a joke, perhaps this should be the talk of the staffroom:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/30/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Exam-Expletives.php

"A British high school student was awarded marks for writing nothing
but a two-word obscenity on an exam paper because the phrase expressed
meaning and was spelled correctly.

The Times newspaper on Monday quoted examiner Peter Buckroyd as saying
he gave the student — who wrote an expletive starting with f, followed
by the word "off" — two points out of a possible 27 for the English
paper.

"It would be wicked to give it zero because it does show some very
basic skills we are looking for, like conveying some meaning and some
spelling," Buckroyd was quoted as saying.

"It's better than someone that doesn't write anything at all."

Buckroyd said the student would have received a higher mark if the
phrase had been punctuated."

You couldn't make it up.


-- 

from
Aero Spike

Brian Reay wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>> Anybody surprised by this.
>>
>> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics 
>> teachers
>> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>
>Actually, it isn't as simple as that. Many schools still actually teach the 
>sciences as three distinct subjects, ie they may  be time-tabled as science 
>but the lessons will be allocated to perhaps physics for x weeks, followed 
>by biology for y weeks etc. All in all, the time spent on each subject will 
>be much the same as if they were timetabled as separate subjects. It can 
>also allow better cross subject links to develop.
>
>Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should be 
>within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A level 
>it can get a bit more tricky.
>
>As you can imagine, this topic was the talk of the staff room today. The 
>consensus was that this was merely the current fad the Gov. had latched 
>onto.

Unless it is a joke, perhaps this should be the talk of the staffroom:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/30/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Exam-Expletives.php

"A British high school student was awarded marks for writing nothing
but a two-word obscenity on an exam paper because the phrase expressed
meaning and was spelled correctly.

The Times newspaper on Monday quoted examiner Peter Buckroyd as saying
he gave the student — who wrote an expletive starting with f, followed
by the word "off" — two points out of a possible 27 for the English
paper.

"It would be wicked to give it zero because it does show some very
basic skills we are looking for, like conveying some meaning and some
spelling," Buckroyd was quoted as saying.

"It's better than someone that doesn't write anything at all."

Buckroyd said the student would have received a higher mark if the
phrase had been punctuated."

You couldn't make it up.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Brian Reay wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>> Anybody surprised by this.
>>
>> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics 
>> teachers
>> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>
>Actually, it isn't as simple as that. Many schools still actually teach the 
>sciences as three distinct subjects, ie they may  be time-tabled as science 
>but the lessons will be allocated to perhaps physics for x weeks, followed 
>by biology for y weeks etc. All in all, the time spent on each subject will 
>be much the same as if they were timetabled as separate subjects. It can 
>also allow better cross subject links to develop.
>
>Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should be 
>within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A level 
>it can get a bit more tricky.
>
>As you can imagine, this topic was the talk of the staff room today. The 
>consensus was that this was merely the current fad the Gov. had latched 
>onto.

Unless it is a joke, perhaps this should be the talk of the staffroom:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/30/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Exam-Expletives.php

"A British high school student was awarded marks for writing nothing
but a two-word obscenity on an exam paper because the phrase expressed
meaning and was spelled correctly.

The Times newspaper on Monday quoted examiner Peter Buckroyd as saying
he gave the student — who wrote an expletive starting with f, followed
by the word "off" — two points out of a possible 27 for the English
paper.

"It would be wicked to give it zero because it does show some very
basic skills we are looking for, like conveying some meaning and some
spelling," Buckroyd was quoted as saying.

"It's better than someone that doesn't write anything at all."

Buckroyd said the student would have received a higher mark if the
phrase had been punctuated."

You couldn't make it up.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:cu5i649jchqmsn8ieh4kvgnuqqn84a3a23@4ax.com...
>
> Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>>news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>>> Anybody surprised by this.
>>>
>>> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics
>>> teachers
>>> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>>
>>Actually, it isn't as simple as that. Many schools still actually teach 
>>the
>>sciences as three distinct subjects, ie they may  be time-tabled as 
>>science
>>but the lessons will be allocated to perhaps physics for x weeks, followed
>>by biology for y weeks etc. All in all, the time spent on each subject 
>>will
>>be much the same as if they were timetabled as separate subjects. It can
>>also allow better cross subject links to develop.
>>
>>Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should 
>>be
>>within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A 
>>level
>>it can get a bit more tricky.
>>
>>As you can imagine, this topic was the talk of the staff room today. The
>>consensus was that this was merely the current fad the Gov. had latched
>>onto.
>
> Unless it is a joke, perhaps this should be the talk of the staffroom:
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/30/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Exam-Expletives.php
>

It probably will be with the English crowd (staff rooms can be quite tribal 
at times) but, unlike some, teachers were working at 10:11 this morning when 
the story broke (on Reuters).

However, I wonder how accurate the report is. The implication seems to be 
that the marks were given explicitly for the expression but I wonder if 
there was with material which, in reality, earned the marks but the "f*** 
o**" grabbed the news.  It would be interesting to see the script.

I've not  had cause to look at a mark scheme for the English GCSEs but I 
expect they are on the internet. If so, it would be possible to see how 
tight it is and if there is the type of latitude suggested by the report.


-- 
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

Brian Reay wrote:

>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:cu5i649jchqmsn8ieh4kvgnuqqn84a3a23@4ax.com...
>>
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>>>> Anybody surprised by this.
>>>>
>>>> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics
>>>> teachers
>>>> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>>>
>>>Actually, it isn't as simple as that. Many schools still actually teach 
>>>the
>>>sciences as three distinct subjects, ie they may  be time-tabled as 
>>>science
>>>but the lessons will be allocated to perhaps physics for x weeks, followed
>>>by biology for y weeks etc. All in all, the time spent on each subject 
>>>will
>>>be much the same as if they were timetabled as separate subjects. It can
>>>also allow better cross subject links to develop.
>>>
>>>Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should 
>>>be
>>>within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A 
>>>level
>>>it can get a bit more tricky.
>>>
>>>As you can imagine, this topic was the talk of the staff room today. The
>>>consensus was that this was merely the current fad the Gov. had latched
>>>onto.
>>
>> Unless it is a joke, perhaps this should be the talk of the staffroom:
>>
>> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/30/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Exam-Expletives.php
>>
>
>It probably will be with the English crowd (staff rooms can be quite tribal 
>at times) but, unlike some, teachers were working at 10:11 this morning when 
>the story broke (on Reuters).
>
>However, I wonder how accurate the report is. The implication seems to be 
>that the marks were given explicitly for the expression but I wonder if 
>there was with material which, in reality, earned the marks but the "f*** 
>o**" grabbed the news.  It would be interesting to see the script.

I think the clue to the extent of the literary masterpiece lies in the
phrase "...writing nothing but a two-word obscenity on an exam
paper...".



-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:9o8i64ltmh3ku5tkcs9f4ephltajj8piim@4ax.com...

>>
>>However, I wonder how accurate the report is. The implication seems to be
>>that the marks were given explicitly for the expression but I wonder if
>>there was with material which, in reality, earned the marks but the "f***
>>o**" grabbed the news.  It would be interesting to see the script.
>
> I think the clue to the extent of the literary masterpiece lies in the
> phrase "...writing nothing but a two-word obscenity on an exam
> paper...".

You are assuming that bit was accurate. May be it was but, if it wasn't, it 
wouldn't be news.

-- 
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message 
news:rD9ak.72127$GF6.52622@newsfe27.ams2...
> You are assuming that bit was accurate. May be it was but, if it wasn't, 
> it wouldn't be news.

Do not fall into the trap of judging others by the very standards that
you yourself have exhibited in the past couple of hours.

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:cu5i649jchqmsn8ieh4kvgnuqqn84a3a23@4ax.com...
> Brian Reay wrote:
>> wrote in message
>>news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>>> Anybody surprised by this.
<snip>
> "A British high school student was awarded marks for writing nothing
> but a two-word obscenity on an exam paper because the phrase expressed
> meaning and was spelled correctly.
>
> The Times newspaper on Monday quoted examiner Peter Buckroyd as saying
> he gave the student - who wrote an expletive starting with f, followed
> by the word "off" - two points out of a possible 27 for the English
> paper.
>
>
So if he had writenin it 50 times would he have got 2 points x 50?
i.e. 100%

Steve Terry

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g4aq0s$7ik$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Theo"  wrote in message
> news:lA5ak.140953$8k.91647@newsfe18.ams2...
> > "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:g4aoc7$49i$1@news.albasani.net...
> >>  wrote in message
> >> news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
> >> > Anybody surprised by this.
> >> > Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics
> >> > teachers
> >> > into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
> > I know a guy who got a masters degree in Geology and couldn't get a
proper
> > job so he ended up joining the police!
>
> So he still didn't get a proper job, as do not teachers ...
>
> "Those that can, do.
> Those that can't, teach.
> Those that can't teach, teach PE.
> Those that can't teach PE, join the plods.
> Those that can't plod, join the traffic plods.
> Those that can't traffic plod, are on sale on the vegetable rack in
Tescos.
> Those that are too rotten for the vegetable rack in Tesco, take out
licences
> intended for 6-year-olds.
> Those that can't reach the intellectual and educational attainments
intended
> for 6-year-olds
> become Plastic Plods, AKA Community Support Officers.
>The one remaining passed the RAE after 12 years 6 months and 17 attempts!

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:19:07 +0100, 12 WPM Class A wrote:

> "Theo"  wrote in message
> news:lA5ak.140953$8k.91647@newsfe18.ams2...
>> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:g4aoc7$49i$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>  wrote in message
>>> news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>>> > Anybody surprised by this.
>>> > Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the
>>> > Physics teachers
>>> > into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers
>>> > went!
>> I know a guy who got a masters degree in Geology and couldn't get a
>> proper job so he ended up joining the police!
> 
> So he still didn't get a proper job, as do not teachers ...
> 
> "Those that can, do.
> Those that can't, teach.
> Those that can't teach, teach PE.
> Those that can't teach PE, join the plods. Those that can't plod, join
> the traffic plods. Those that can't traffic plod, are on sale on the
> vegetable rack in Tescos. Those that are too rotten for the vegetable
> rack in Tesco, take out licences intended for 6-year-olds.
> Those that can't reach the intellectual and educational attainments
> intended for 6-year-olds
> become Plastic Plods, AKA Community Support Officers. Those that can't
> even do that, subscribe to this NG as Mrs.Nugatory and the Numpty
> Trucker
> and spend all day crying on each others' shoulders"


May I congratulate you on a noble attempt to get a thread more or less 
back on topic! :-)

-- 
Mick                      (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info  http://mixpix.batcave.net
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

Steve Terry wrote:

>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:cu5i649jchqmsn8ieh4kvgnuqqn84a3a23@4ax.com...
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>>>> Anybody surprised by this.
><snip>
>> "A British high school student was awarded marks for writing nothing
>> but a two-word obscenity on an exam paper because the phrase expressed
>> meaning and was spelled correctly.
>>
>> The Times newspaper on Monday quoted examiner Peter Buckroyd as saying
>> he gave the student - who wrote an expletive starting with f, followed
>> by the word "off" - two points out of a possible 27 for the English
>> paper.
>>
>>
>So if he had writenin it 50 times would he have got 2 points x 50?
>i.e. 100%
>
>Steve Terry
>

It would also seem to depend on how correctly it was punctuated.
Perhaps layout might count with an essay of such magnitude.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Spike wrote:
> Brian Reay wrote:

>> Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should be 
>> within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A level 
>> it can get a bit more tricky.

I remember meeting my old A-level physics teacher a few years after I 
left the school (a Ph.D who used to work in nuclear research before 
teaching, and by far the best physics teacher I ever had) and he stated 
the GCSE physics exam was simply a GCSE in common sense and was nowhere 
near the knowledge level of the old O-level physics exam.  He said he 
felt sorry for those people now taking GSCE physics as the step up to 
A-level physics was now much larger.

I guess this was the start of the dumbing down rot which the RSGB tried 
to emulate?

"Theo"  wrote in message 
news:BQbak.49970$Kb.12037@newsfe29.ams2...
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g4aq0s$7ik$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Theo"  wrote in message
>> news:lA5ak.140953$8k.91647@newsfe18.ams2...
>> > "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:g4aoc7$49i$1@news.albasani.net...
>> >>  wrote in message
>> >> news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>> >> > Anybody surprised by this.
>> >> > Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the 
>> >> > Physics
>> >> > teachers
>> >> > into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers 
>> >> > went!
>> > I know a guy who got a masters degree in Geology and couldn't get a
> proper
>> > job so he ended up joining the police!
>> So he still didn't get a proper job, as do not teachers ...
>> "Those that can, do.
>> Those that can't, teach.
>> Those that can't teach, teach PE.
>> Those that can't teach PE, join the plods.
>> Those that can't plod, join the traffic plods.
>> Those that can't traffic plod, are on sale on the vegetable rack in
> Tescos.
>> Those that are too rotten for the vegetable rack in Tesco, take out
> licences
>> intended for 6-year-olds.
>> Those that can't reach the intellectual and educational attainments
> intended
>> for 6-year-olds
>> become Plastic Plods, AKA Community Support Officers.
>>The one remaining passed the RAE after 12 years 6 months and 17 attempts!

Nathan "Not Ham" Hull, G7KUJ, the INCURABLE CBER identifies himself as that 
person.

"class_a"  wrote in message 
news:YcednatJyuTKGfTVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Spike wrote:
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>> Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should 
>>> be within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A 
>>> level it can get a bit more tricky.
> I remember meeting my old A-level physics teacher a few years after I left 
> the school (a Ph.D who used to work in nuclear research before teaching, 
> and by far the best physics teacher I ever had) and he stated the GCSE 
> physics exam was simply a GCSE in common sense and was nowhere near the 
> knowledge level of the old O-level physics exam.  He said he felt sorry 
> for those people now taking GSCE physics as the step up to A-level physics 
> was now much larger.
> I guess this was the start of the dumbing down rot which the RSGB tried to 
> emulate?

I had a similar conversation with my old maths teacher at Uni who is now
the professor emeritus.

He said that they have to have an extra year's tuition in maths to bring
today's "A-level qualified" candidates up to the standard that people
of my generation had 30 years ago; so making 3 year courses into 4 years.

Who do we know who played a large part in the dumbing down of the
once respectable RSGB in Central London into the degenerate RSCB
near the sewage works of a 3rd World township; who also teaches
maths at A-level; and who engineered a considerable dumbing-down
(although it took him 25+ years) of his qualification needed for HF access?

"class_a"  wrote in message 
news:YcednatJyuTKGfTVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Spike wrote:
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>
>>> Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject should 
>>> be within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other sciences. At A 
>>> level it can get a bit more tricky.
>
> I remember meeting my old A-level physics teacher a few years after I left 
> the school


I'd expect someone with a decent grade in A level Physics to be able to 
understand how a choke Balun works or, at least, have the skills to follow 
an analysis of one.

--
73
Brian

"Brian Reay"  wrote in message 
news:Kkjak.94015$zs1.9409@newsfe28.ams2...
> I'd expect someone with a decent grade in A level Physics to be able to 
> understand how a choke Balun works or, at least, have the skills to follow 
> an analysis of one.
>

There you go again, abusing yourself.

When some who is as important in his own mind as you seem to be
in yours resorts to gratuitous abuse in an effort to make himself
feel better then the only person he demeans is himself.

For myself, I'd expect someone who _BOASTS_ of at least _TWO DEGREES_
to be able to tackle and then pass a 12 WPM Morse test that
otherwise-unqualified self-taught 14-year-olds were taking in their
stride and not deceive himself and others by claiming that he was
against the use of a Morse qualification to control access to the
HF bands only to jump at the chance of a no-fail opportunity and then
to vaunt himself as the guardian of Morse standards in the latest
propaganda from the RSCB.

"Do as I say but not as I do", it would seem, once more, OM.

12 WPM Class A wrote:

>For myself, I'd expect someone who _BOASTS_ of at least _TWO DEGREES_
>to be able to tackle and then pass a 12 WPM Morse test that
>otherwise-unqualified self-taught 14-year-olds were taking in their
>stride and not deceive himself and others by claiming that he was
>against the use of a Morse qualification to control access to the
>HF bands only to jump at the chance of a no-fail opportunity and then
>to vaunt himself as the guardian of Morse standards in the latest
>propaganda from the RSCB.
>
>"Do as I say but not as I do", it would seem, once more, OM.
>



For myself, I'd expect someone who _HARPS_ on about the Morse test, 
not to have required more than ten years to prepare for, and pass that
test which otherwise-unqualified self taught 14-year-olds were taking
in their stride, in order to advance from his former "0 WPM Class B"
status to his current "12 WPM Class A".

"Pot calling kettle black", it would seem, once more, OM.



--
Chris

"Chris Kirby"  wrote in message 
news:44hj64h04c3cekcdm1r836c9cv1kne7c7a@4ax.com...
> For myself, I'd expect someone who _HARPS_ on about the Morse test,
> not to have required more than ten years to prepare for, and pass that
> test which otherwise-unqualified self taught 14-year-olds were taking
> in their stride, in order to advance from his former "0 WPM Class B"
> status to his current "12 WPM Class A".
> "Pot calling kettle black", it would seem, once more, OM.

THE GREAT KIRBY is back on then?

So, someone who wanted to be able to use Morse Code
at VHF and fulfilled that ambition within less than a year is
as reprehensible as someone who wanted HF access, but wouldn't
make the effort and waited for a no-fail test to come along 25+ years
later?

Yep. THE GREAT KIRBY is back on again.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:33:32 +0100, "Brian Reay"
 wrote:

>have the skills to follow an analysis ....

Talking  of skills to follow an analysis...

How are you getting on with following those URLs I gave you in that
other thread - which has gone strangely silent?

You be sure to let me know when you're ready for the next batch.
Y'hear?

Nick.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:33:32 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

> 
> "class_a"  wrote in message
> news:YcednatJyuTKGfTVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Spike wrote:
>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject
>>>> should be within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other
>>>> sciences. At A level it can get a bit more tricky.
>>
>> I remember meeting my old A-level physics teacher a few years after I
>> left the school
> 
> 
> I'd expect someone with a decent grade in A level Physics to be able to
> understand how a choke Balun works or, at least, have the skills to follow
> an analysis of one.

In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out problems
from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.

-- 
   ___  _______   ___    ___  ___  __  ____
  / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \  / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
 / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/  /_/ |_\____/____/

What the fuck has this to do with amateur radio in the UK, twat?

 wrote in message 
news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
> Anybody surprised by this.
>
> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics 
> teachers
> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>
> Dave
>

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:31:57 +0700,  wrote:

> Date:                       Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:31:57 +0700
> From:                       =?iso-8859-1?Q?G8ASO_=3C=28o=BFo=29=3E_=A9?= 
> Importance:                 Normal
> Lines:                      12
> Message-ID:                 
> NNTP-Posting-Date:          Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:32:05 -0500
> NNTP-Posting-Host:          203.209.79.6
> Newsgroups:                 uk.radio.amateur
> Path:                       news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!newsfeeder.dynfx.net!weretis.net!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.pipex.net!news.pipex.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
> References:                 
> Subject:                    Re: Physics Teacher Shortage
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info:      Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info:      Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Complaints-To:            abuse@dsl.pipex.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To:       abuse@dsl.pipex.net
> X-MSMail-Priority:          Normal
> X-MimeOLE:                  Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606
> X-Newsreader:               Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606
> X-Original-Bytes:           1707
> X-Postfilter:               1.3.39
> X-Priority:                 3
> X-Trace:                    sv3-A3MPxTAQhLaEps9d6Y++MzcOhHxgqPBtPLQQXkpJVurtClWdKAqWZzgAU5m+XJ5IRVaZVUNa8mcp8NX!+ZQn7M2nvaqJ6aKAxr5s3iDdnyTGolXb9yOuBQi/XYfL+3vn2Oi+jhvNbt7yzPVLhPK6tw1laDrB!JM3WtXitaB5g3gDVrit4IZ3P
> X-Usenet-Provider:          http://www.giganews.com
> Xref:                       news.datemas.de uk.radio.amateur:30446989
> MIME-Version:               1.0
> Content-Type:               text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original
> Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
> 
> What the fuck has this to do with amateur radio in the UK, twat?

Only ejits top post.

> 
>  wrote in message
> news:81lh64t0igpg3p0fei31meuqq131olf23d@4ax.com...
>> Anybody surprised by this.
>>
>> Teaching Science as a single subject seams to have driven the Physics
>> teachers
>> into industry.  Wonder where the Chemistry and Biology teachers went!
>>
>> Dave
>>

-- 
   ___  _______   ___    ___  ___  __  ____
  / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \  / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
 / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/  /_/ |_\____/____/

G8ASO <(o¿o)> © wrote:
> What the fuck has this to do with amateur radio in the UK, twat?

You'll have missed the connection between physics and radio then?

-- 

Brian

"Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
news:g4cmu7$i9j$1@news.datemas.de...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:33:32 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>>
>> "class_a"  wrote in message
>> news:YcednatJyuTKGfTVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Spike wrote:
>>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject
>>>>> should be within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other
>>>>> sciences. At A level it can get a bit more tricky.
>>>
>>> I remember meeting my old A-level physics teacher a few years after I
>>> left the school
>>
>>
>> I'd expect someone with a decent grade in A level Physics to be able to
>> understand how a choke Balun works or, at least, have the skills to 
>> follow
>> an analysis of one.
>
> In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out problems
> from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.
>

When was "your day", I will check.

While Bio-Savarts isn't listed in the current specification, there is plenty 
of similar "first principle" material, why not actually look at the A level 
specification.


-- 
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

wrote in message 
news:0emj64d1s5ua7504p2igs6pol0davovc89@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:33:32 +0100, "Brian Reay"
>  wrote:
>
>>have the skills to follow an analysis ....
>
> Talking  of skills to follow an analysis...
>
> How are you getting on with following those URLs I gave you in that
> other thread - which has gone strangely silent?

There were a batch of newspaper reports which I don't attach much credence 
to.


-- 
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:20:32 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

> 
> 
> "Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
> news:g4cmu7$i9j$1@news.datemas.de...
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:33:32 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "class_a"  wrote in message
>>> news:YcednatJyuTKGfTVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Also, certainly for GCSE, the knowledge required for each subject
>>>>>> should be within the ability of the teacher of  one of the other
>>>>>> sciences. At A level it can get a bit more tricky.
>>>>
>>>> I remember meeting my old A-level physics teacher a few years after I
>>>> left the school
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd expect someone with a decent grade in A level Physics to be able to
>>> understand how a choke Balun works or, at least, have the skills to 
>>> follow
>>> an analysis of one.
>>
>> In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out problems
>> from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.
>>
> 
> When was "your day", I will check.

74

> 
> While Bio-Savarts isn't listed in the current specification, there is plenty 
> of similar "first principle" material, why not actually look at the A level 
> specification.

I checked out maths and physics A'level text books in about 1997 and found
them to be much easier, things like applied maths questions and examples
were now where near as complex - sliding masses on springs (inclined),
projectiles etc. Ok they touched on everything but it wasn't to the same
level of previous years. Questions today are simple. 

-- 
   ___  _______   ___    ___  ___  __  ____
  / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \  / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
 / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/  /_/ |_\____/____/

"Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
news:g4dltf$h93$1@news.datemas.de...
 >>>
>>
>> When was "your day", I will check.
>
> 74

More or less the same as me then.  I doubt I can find a syllabus that old 
but I may have an old physics book in the loft from that time.

>>
>> While Bio-Savarts isn't listed in the current specification, there is 
>> plenty
>> of similar "first principle" material, why not actually look at the A 
>> level
>> specification.
>
> I checked out maths and physics A'level text books in about 1997 and found
> them to be much easier, things like applied maths questions and examples
> were now where near as complex - sliding masses on springs (inclined),
> projectiles etc. Ok they touched on everything but it wasn't to the same
> level of previous years. Questions today are simple.

Well, if you've maintained your knowledge, they would seem so. That is the 
nature of things.

-- 
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:22:20 +0100, "Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid>
wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:0emj64d1s5ua7504p2igs6pol0davovc89@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:33:32 +0100, "Brian Reay"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>have the skills to follow an analysis ....
>>
>> Talking  of skills to follow an analysis...
>>
>> How are you getting on with following those URLs I gave you in that
>> other thread - which has gone strangely silent?
>
>There were a batch of newspaper reports which I don't attach much credence 
>to.

Really.  Including the TES, Guardian Education, The Independent and
BBC News?  What a shame, we were going to do Ofsted & HMIE reports
next...

Probably worth giving more credence to all of those together, than to
the somewhat limited opinion on the subject that you've expressed.

Nick.

Spike wrote:


>Unless it is a joke, perhaps this should be the talk of the staffroom:
>
>http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/30/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Exam-Expletives.php
>
>"A British high school student was awarded marks for writing nothing
>but a two-word obscenity on an exam paper because the phrase expressed
>meaning and was spelled correctly.
>
>The Times newspaper on Monday quoted examiner Peter Buckroyd as saying
>he gave the student — who wrote an expletive starting with f, followed
>by the word "off" — two points out of a possible 27 for the English
>paper.

A bit more here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4237491.ece

"Write ‘f*** off’ on a GCSE paper and you’ll get 7.5%. Add an
exclamation mark and it’ll go up to 11%"

"One pupil who wrote “f*** off” was given marks for accurate spelling
and conveying a meaning successfully.

His paper was marked by chief examiner Peter Buckroyd, who has
instructed fellow examiners to mark in the same way. He told trainee
examiners recently to adhere strictly to the mark scheme, to the
extent that pupils who wrote only expletives on their papers should be
awarded points. "

As this is from a Chief Examiner, who trained his staff accordingly,
we must assume the story to be fundamentally correct.

You couldn't make it up.



-- 

from
Aero Spike

I was in a COOP funeral parlour today ....... funny people ....suppose it 
goes with the job...there was a black Mazda MX3 outside! .........

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:52:36 +0100, "The modern DIGITAL world is
rubbish ........"  wrote:

>I was in a COOP funeral parlour today ....... funny people ....suppose it 
>goes with the job...there was a black Mazda MX3 outside! ......... 

You have to be dead to drive an MX3....  It's in the Construction and
Use regulations.

"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message 
news:0Rsak.162854$aE7.101103@newsfe16.ams2...
>  wrote in message
> There were a batch of newspaper reports which I don't attach much credence 
> to.

Therefore, by the same logic, you attach no credence to what is
published in BadCon.

(Or is this another case of "Do as I say but not as I do"?)

By  now distrusting what is published in BadCon you're finally proving
yourself capable of learning something new so perhaps 25+ is
now a thing of the past with you?

"Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
news:g4cmu7$i9j$1@news.datemas.de...
> In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out problems
> from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.

ISTR that it was actually represented as "The Law of Biot And Savart".

Still present in a 1982 A level physics text book.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:04:23 +0100, 12 WPM Class A wrote:

> "Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
> news:g4cmu7$i9j$1@news.datemas.de...
>> In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out problems
>> from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.
> 
> ISTR that it was actually represented as "The Law of Biot And Savart".
> 
> Still present in a 1982 A level physics text book.

Yeah - mistake, it's been a long time. I'm working from memory. I used
Nelkon and Parker for my studies.

-- 
   ___  _______   ___    ___  ___  __  ____
  / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \  / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
 / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/  /_/ |_\____/____/

"Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
news:g4fhlv$m59$1@news.datemas.de...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:04:23 +0100, 12 WPM Class A wrote:
>> "Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message
>> news:g4cmu7$i9j$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out 
>>> problems
>>> from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.
>> ISTR that it was actually represented as "The Law of Biot And Savart".
>> Still present in a 1982 A level physics text book.
> Yeah - mistake, it's been a long time. I'm working from memory. I used
> Nelkon and Parker for my studies.

Interesting that M3OSN claims that he never studied it despite that it
was in the syllabus during his time at the South Shields Reformatory
Technical School For Boys (www.archive.net is your friend!)

Should we really have people involved in teaching A level when they
cannot even remember their basics at that level?

"Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
news:g4fhlv$m59$1@news.datemas.de...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:04:23 +0100, 12 WPM Class A wrote:
>> "Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message
>> news:g4cmu7$i9j$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out 
>>> problems
>>> from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.
>> ISTR that it was actually represented as "The Law of Biot And Savart".
>> Still present in a 1982 A level physics text book.
> Yeah - mistake, it's been a long time. I'm working from memory. I used
> Nelkon and Parker for my studies.

The 1982 book is Nelkon and Detheridge.

We had Nelkon and Parker (Big, red cover?) at Nailsea from '67 to '69

I had to revise all that lo-level mag stuff recently for a job involving
Near Field Communications at 13.56MHz.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:43:25 +0100, 12 WPM Class A wrote:

> "Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message 
> news:g4fhlv$m59$1@news.datemas.de...
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:04:23 +0100, 12 WPM Class A wrote:
>>> "Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message
>>> news:g4cmu7$i9j$1@news.datemas.de...
>>>> In my day we did Bio-Savarts law and employed it when working out 
>>>> problems
>>>> from first principles. They don't do anything like that these days.
>>> ISTR that it was actually represented as "The Law of Biot And Savart".
>>> Still present in a 1982 A level physics text book.
>> Yeah - mistake, it's been a long time. I'm working from memory. I used
>> Nelkon and Parker for my studies.
> 
> Interesting that M3OSN claims that he never studied it despite that it
> was in the syllabus during his time at the South Shields Reformatory
> Technical School For Boys (www.archive.net is your friend!)
> 
> Should we really have people involved in teaching A level when they
> cannot even remember their basics at that level?

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with any of the background regarding your
complaint. More generally there are lots of people in jobs for which we
know of better candidates. The same goes for earnings, being a dumb ***k
is no bar.

-- 
   ___  _______   ___    ___  ___  __  ____
  / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \  / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
 / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/  /_/ |_\____/____/