http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/06/science_decline/ In one respect it pisses me off, that people are getting discouraged because they are more concerned about the schools status, however, it also worries me that future generations will be full of people that don't bother trying because something is perceived as having to give effort and they can't then go spend time drinking/partying. However, Im happy because it'll mean my Chemistry degree is worth MORE because less people do it and it's percieved as a greater acheivement than the arts.
I thought this, only replace chem with phys The only problem is I wouldn't call myself a cutting edge physicist so if you want some actual research done with your up and coming physicists, im not your man! Anyway, weren't they complaining alevels were too easy not long ago ? I like the alevel system,. it means I got to specialise in stuff I wanted to do sooner rather than have to suffer several more years of tedious french/german, art and design, PE! and other such subjects. The whole grading system is in a state of disarray at the moment anyway, critics on every corner of every branch, theres even talk of making degrees a pass/fail system which would be ridiculous (I mean, it would again be awesome for me - I could go get a first (in theory ) then id always be picked over the person who "passed") because suddenly your third in computer science means about as much as a first (both count as passes) - though they say you then list the modules and marks in them which entirely contradicts the reason for the change in the first place! edit: oh awesome
As the report mentions, this goes hand-in-hand with the whole "school isn't cool" vibe we get from young people's media these days. Tailoring your schooling toward something you may wish to do afterward is something that 90% of kids don't even think about. They just want to a) leave or b) do something easy. As has been said, at least it means we won't be out of work for the rest of our lives
Speaking as an Interactive Media student I think this is absolute rubbish. I don't study media because it's "Funky" I study it because I enjoy doing it and it's something I'm passionate about. As for it apparently being easier than science or maths that's rubbish, I don't see any scientists designing cutting edge graphics and proclaiming how easy it is. Chances are everybody who did this study is too old to understand today's culture and how much it differed from their jaded view of "Back in my day we did it like this" Maybe my course is more challenging because it's applied media, but I can't see how you can compare it to science and maths, because it's an art. It's not really a question of effort, more of what you're interested in and passionate about, nobody should be forced to study something they aren't interested in to such a high level. The reason I believe nobody is as interested in these subjects anymore is because today's culture is dominated by the media and that makes people more interested in it. If you're passionate about science (As still quite a few people are) then study it. Another reason not as many people are interested in science anymore is that not as many people feel the need to study it, these days people are generally more open minded and happy to explore new things so they're not just studying the boring subjects anymore.
This has been true for a very long time, all this talk about A-levels getting easier isn't really true. It's just all these high grades and pass marks are because people are taking the "easier" subjects like media studies or whatever (I say "easier" because I'm really crap at that stuff ). Most people who do things like that, do it because it's easy, so it's an easy A-level, although there are people who do it because they enjoy it. A friend of mine does it at uni because it's something he really enjoys and it something he'd like to do for a job, not because it's easy. You should hear some of my friends winging on about how they've got 12 o'clock start every day. I also had someone saying to me that thier mondays were harder (like 2 hours starting at 12) because they had friday off so they got used to not going to lectures. I wanted to kill them.
Yes, I can understand that, but I've heard from too many of my brothers/sisters friends (and my bro/sis in the past) that if they aren't good at something from the get-go they aren't going to even try to improve at it despite the fact they may like it more. And media is seen as making a poster or watching TV. There's a balance of usefulness and life-skills with what you can do with it once you've done it. Although there are careers services noone thinks about the future, it's what they want to do there and then (which I can still relate to).
My chemisty teacher had a graph of A Levels against difficulty (some function of the marks and grades). Needless to say, chemistry and physics were on the far right (most difficult) and media studies etc. were towards the left quarter, and English was pretty central. Further maths wasn't included. The thing is, electronics is far easier than phyics and chemistry at AS and A2 and they are easier than further maths. There are people who can get an A in economics, but struggle to get more than 4 marks in a mechanics M1 paper, but I've not met anyone who finds the opposite. As saladman says, grades are partially down to whether you're interested or not, but I have no doubt that this report is true, and some subjects are harder than others.
Straight from the horse's mouth, I feel. Media is the reason you think these subjects are 'boring'. So yea, study away!
Actually, being quite technical and practical, my degree program includes quite alot of studying, several programming languages and learning to use alot of advanced software, including 3d modelling and animation tools. Even normal media programmes include more work than people realise though, do you have any idea how much work goes into creating an image and narrative that mean something? Thought not.
I have absolutely no problem with this. Psychololgy, Sociology, Media Studies - all that junk, those are all worthless at higher(and A-level I'd be quite certain). Even at most uni levels they're terrible degrees. The exception being Clinical Psychology, but that requires a tonne of work so most of the people who pick the above three A-levels probably won't be much into clinical psychology. As it is, I'm doing chemistry atm, I intend to do physics, maths, possibly biology. Plenty of decent hard subjects, and the same at uni. At the end I'll be the highly employable one, whereas the people with funky degrees can go and get Macjobs. Doing hard subjects is it's own reward imo, that and you don't have to put up with all the work-shy egits.
While ime sure it can be tough sometimes getting the right colors and whatnot, in the end you can just ask any old shmoe "does this look ok?". Learn to use the software and you are away, all you need then is to know what various effects do to change the look of layers and its pie. Though in the same vein you could argue that get to know a mathematical method and you can do anything surrounding it, only theres no "oh its nearly right", or "that looks ok" in maths and physics, its either right or wrong and much of the time what your doing isnt obviously right. I think maths and physics are harder not because of the content - as any good teacher will give you a step by step guide to any situation which eventually you can apply to all manner of situations (if you have the ability to see a problem as a sequence of formulas) however how do you UNDERSTAND maths and physics? Why does moving your hand create a force? and what IS a force? I dont think maths and physics are more difficult in principle and in doing, but when it comes to understanding new things its far more difficult.
I love that the initial reaction is that students are being 'steered away' from science/math/etc. Trust me, they run screaming. The students I work with on a day to day basis are switched of by the test focused curriculum, Ofsted only evaluates certain criteria and school targets mean that teachers are blasting through the curriculum just to cover the myriad of topics necessary to do the exams. The whole targets system promotes this behaviour. It doesn't help that the children we work with have few boundaries, they are not responsible enough to work in 30+ class sizes on interactive projects when there is only one teacher to supervise. 1 adult to 30+ children with little in the way of boundaries? You do the math. The comprehensive school system is a joke, we battery farm kids who are not mature enough to deal with the pressure - result: dissilusioned kids fed lies and materialism by a media that doesn''t care about them. For education to work you need small groups, a mix of projects/hands on with academia and a degree of community service to give students a sense of worth and respect that we seem to be losing as a nation. Their motivation and self respect needs to be rekindled and this can't be achieved by shoving them in a packed classroom with a single adult and spoon feeding them textbook material - this is not education, its soul destroying for us and its soul destroying for them. Of course, the other argument is that we need people to work in MC Donalds, toilet cleaning, box manufacture, etc and why do they need a GCSE education?
Hmm interesting. I'm doing chemistry, physics, and further maths A levels this year, and the only one that is truely difficult is further maths! Physics and chemistry are not what I call hard or difficult. In fact, having seen some of the stuff required for English lit and history and the like from my friends, I would far rather do the sciences that any arts/language. It depends on the person if they see arts or science as "easier".
We've been down this avenue before. If I recall, the last time it ended up with each person defending his or her own field of study. I suspect the same will happen this time, as well. It's actually a lot more involved than that. Creating a truly successful image requires some understanding of any number of factors, such as color theory, composition, elements of desgin, etc. Sure, anyone can throw a few colors on a page and it might look good, but without the proper training (even self-teaching) that person probably can't produce a solid body of work. That's an incredibly short-sighted opinion. I studied photography and studio art in college, and I have a solid work history to back it up. My funky degree has enabled me to work in a television station editing news, a newspaper shooting any number of subjects, and now for NASA working on Space Station imagery. Macjob, indeed. Each degree, each field of study, has it's place. Also, you can't simply state that a degree in a "hard" field is a guaranteed job, whereas a degree in an "easy" field equates to flipping burgers. With outsourcing, downsizing, and an influx of people wanting those high-paying "hard" jobs, there was a surplus of engineers here not too long ago. Some of my engineering friends had a hard time finding work with so much competition around. Without the engineers we might not have the internet. Without graphic designers we'd be looking at hot-pink text on black backgrounds. -monkey
This is brilliant. For people like me who study solely science and maths at A-Level, I'm worth a hell of a lot more now. I don't care if society is stupid, as long as I get better prospects becuase I can be bothered to work. EDIT: I'd better clarify. Media studies, photography, bus. studies, etc. while they may be 'easier' you'll only go so far if you don't want to work. People choose media studies becuase they think it's an easy qualification. People who choose media studies becuase they enjoy it are just as hard working as anyone else (or moreso).
I wouldn't say your role would be classed as "funky" though. Photography is something there aren't a stupid number of people passing each year. Media studies graduates are the 2nd least employable graduates out there, it's a crappy, worthless degree and the higher or A-level isn't going to be any better. Of course there are a certain number of people like graphic designers neccesary, and there is obviously a need for some people to be good at media related stuff. However, if I look at a college like mine, there are considerably more people doing things like psychology and sociology than doing any of the sciences. I knew about four or five people in school who went off to do psychology degrees at uni. These are people with no aspiration to become psychologists, and they're not even doing a decent level(like clinical). Like I said, I'm fine with it - It just leaves more decent jobs for me.
“A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices” - William James The level of discourse mastered by the so-called “scientists” on this thread has highlighted an intrinsic weakness in your rejection of literary based subjects: you can’t marshal an argument for sh*t. I’m astounded by your complacency, and this ludicrous dichotomy people seem to draw between the sciences on one hand, and “easy subjects” on the other. What evidence can you adduce for this ridiculous assumption? How is the study of that all essential human component - the mind - worthless? Why is there no value in trying to inform ourselves about society? Of course, all people not doing sciences are stupid! An interesting point, but surely the same could be said for historical causation, or indeed the quality of justice? I think it’s sad that people are drawn away from the sciences, as they are personally enriching, and indeed will obviously shape the future. But please, don’t demean every other subject, and make the assumption that someone who studies history or English literature does so because they were too “stupid” to do mathematics etc.
Supermonkey you're my hero, I want your babies inside me! (That was random I know, but you get my point)
Well like I said, media studies are the 2nd most unemployable graduates(not sourcing that, read it in the independant or times a while back). We'll see sociology and degree graduates in a similar situation in a few years, since that's what's popular to study right now. Of course the study of the mind is not worthless, but for the most part at secondary school levels they don't actually teach anyone all that much they couldn't find out just be reading the subject a little themselves. Likewise for society, yes it's good if people can understand it, but we don't need 20% of our graduates to have crappy degrees in it. I didn't say sciences, I said hard subjects and I stick by the idea that taking a hard subject is it's own reward. I wouldn't say people who're doing the "funky" subjects are neccesarily stupid, but I think a fair number of people are wasting their time studying those due to being encouraged to keep on at education and not having any intrest whatsoever in the traditional subjects. Regardless of your point of view, the sheer number of people taking the "funky" subjects at degree level in this current fad will ensure that a good percentage of them are left with degrees that really don't have much value. Taking a subject that has a smaller number of people doing it is generally a good idea, but taking a subject that requires far more work to get the degree than the simple one, ensures any potential employers realise that the potential employee knows how to work hard at something which is difficult. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6101796.stm - an interesting link on the difference between a "hard" degree and an easy one. No surprises that the easy example they use is a social "scientist".
