Science is harder than the Arts.

A recent study has proven what has long seemed obvious to anyone who has ever observed pupils in school: Sciences are harder than the Arts.

The study, at Durham University examined the examination results of over a million students and was commissioned by the Institute of Physics and SCORE (Science Community Representing Education).

Students of similar ability, but different subject choice were compared to extract the relative hardness of subjects. The core finding was that science subjects at A level were a grade harder than Arts subjects, in general. This means that a student will score lower on a Science subject, than an Arts subject, although be of the same intellectual standard. Indeed, those behind the study commented that: "A student who gets a C in Biology is going to be generally more able than a student who gets a B in Sociology."

Differences were noted within the Arts subjects, too, with some being demonstrably easier than others. A student studying film studies instead of History can expect more than a grade improvement in his or her results. A student picking media studies instead of English, improves by half a grade.

Students seem to be aware of this. There is a long-term decline in the number of students studying the harder science subjects - and a long-term rise in the number of students picking soft subjects. Since the mid-90s, the proportion of students taking media, film and tv studies has risen by over 250 per cent; while the proportion taking Physical Education and Psychology has doubled. Meanwhile, such subjects as Physics and Chemistry have slipped.

Now, I find this very strange. It seems that examining boards are not standardizing the grading across subjects. All that is necessary to correct for this is to ensure that a student of known ability would perform at the same grade across all subjects, assuming equal effort in each. An A grade in Film Studies, should be just as hard to get as an A grade in Physics. If it isn't, then more credit should be given to students who study harder subjects. Either the exam grading systems must change to reflect these inherent differences in ease of subject - or the way exams are regarded by Universities should change.

Indeed, there are signs that Universities are making moves in the right direction. Both Cambridge University and the London School of Economics have published a list of subjects that they consider too easy = and indicated that they will not accept anyone who studies more than one of them, out of their subject offering.

If it is indeed so, that a Biologist with a C is better than a Sociologist with a B, then Universities should begin to decline Sociologists with a B in preference for Biologists with a C. Perhaps then their student body will begin to reflect the best of the applicants, rather than the most adept at choosing cushy subjects.

I don't know if it was just my school, or not, but this phenomenon was easily observable among the students there. The pupils of exclusively Arts subjects were generally less bright than the students of Science subjects. It didn't take a large study to see this: it was immediately evident.

My question is: is this a global phenomenon? Is it just UK exams that reflect this bias, with Science exams being inherently tougher than Arts exams? How about your country? Do you think Arts students seem less bright than Science students? Are Arts exams easier?

Comments please.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The decline in science.

Does science have a future? I ask because science is in decline - the young simply aren't studying it anymore.

I have seen three different studies of scientific decline in the UK recently.

One piece of evidence was the number of A level students (equivalent to part of a college degree in America), studying Physics. In 1985 there were about 46,000 A level Physics students in the UK, by 2005 that number had declined to 28,000.

Another item of data is comparative statistics for O level (an exam no longer taken in the mainland UK, though still popular overseas) and GCSE physics. At its height, there were FOUR times as many O level Physics candidates as there were GCSE (a weaker replacement exam of much lower standard) Physics students in the UK in 2006. Thus, if we think of the educational process as a funnel, there were four times fewer people entering that funnel for the physical sciences in 2006, than there were in the 1980's. That is a huge loss in scientific potential and understanding.

The final piece of evidence comes from data on the relative decline in doctoral science degrees in the UK. Over the last ten years, the proportion of doctoral degrees (PhD and the like) that were in science has declined from 65% to 59% of the degrees. This occurred against a backdrop increase of 79% in doctoral degrees, in general, in the UK in the same period. Physics, Chemistry, Engineering and Technology degrees were all affected by this decline.

I found these three pieces of evidence very disturbing. You see, they indicate a decline in interest in pursuing science at all levels and ages of the educational system in the UK. I have detailed figures for the UK, but the UK is not the only country facing challenges in this area: I have read of complaints of similar problems in the US. No doubt, other developed nations face similar issues. Quite simply, the enlightenment that science brings will soon be no more. A new darkness of ignorance threatens the happy future so many envisage for our civilization.

Think about this. In the UK, there is only a quarter of the former levels of people receiving an education in Physics, at O level. That means that almost all those who would once have come to understand the basic workings of the world, now no longer do so. They study other things instead: perhaps "mass communications" and the like. These non-science students, become adults who do not understand how the world works. They do not value or respect science. They will not understand it and may not support it. They cannot make scientifically informed decisions about what is meaningful in the things they are told. In all, it means that science will become ever more marginalized - both science and scientists, seen as something unnecessary, "uncool" and perhaps even undesirable. The fact that science underpins the entire edifice of modern civilization will be overlooked by most of them.

The big problem with declines in understanding of science at the population level - as this is - is that it denudes the future generations not only of scientists, but of science teachers. Fewer people will be equipped to prepare future generations of scientific thinkers - and so fewer children will get the opportunity to be taught science by those who understand it - and so it goes on, in a self-pertuating cycle. Each generation threatens to become more ignorant than the one before it.

At first, the effects may be unnoticeable, because not so long ago, it was difficult for every scientist who wanted to work in science, to do so: there was too much competition for jobs. Well, that competition will diminish. Yet, there will still be people, at first, to fill the jobs. They may, however, be of lesser quality (since the pool from which they are drawn is now four times smaller). The quality of their output may not match their predecessors. Science as a discipline will begin to decline.

In just two decades, the UK has shown a four fold decline in basic physical science education. That is a trend that very quickly leads to complete ignorance, should it continue. What is even more telling about this is that there once were four times as many students taking a MUCH MORE DIFFICULT Physics exam (which the O level is, compared to the GCSE). So, not only is there a decline in numbers, but there is a decline in standard of knowledge, too. How is it that just a generation ago, four times as many students met a more difficult scientific challenge than today's children are meeting? It is all very worrying.

I am surprised that so little is being done about this, by the UK government. I see no concerted effort to reverse this trend. What they appear to be oblivious to is that what is being lost is the very expertise needed to support a technological civilization. The older, scientifically educated generation will retire and die - and in their place, there will be a much smaller generation of scientifically educated Britons. Will they be enough to sustain the UK's technological base? Perhaps not...so Britain will import Indians and Chinese - just like the Americans are doing. Yet, that is no solution, for there are only so many of those to go around - and they have many other nations enticing them, too.

Science is dying, in the UK. I do not say this lightly or without justification. I draw your attention to one other fact. In the last 8 years, 30% of Britain's Universities have closed their Physics departments, owing to a lack of students and consequent support. Anyone who cares about the future of science and technology should be very alarmed by that. There is a steep contraction in Britain's science base, underway. It remains to be seen what long-term effects this will have on the British nation as a whole.

There are, no doubt, many reasons for this decline. One is that science is hard and so many other things are much easier. Many students decide to take the easy options, lured by the promise of glamorous careers and high salaries. Then again, science offers relatively poor pay and career progression. If this trend is to be reversed, students must see science as attractive: it must be a well-paid career that offers intellectual rewards, glamour, security, benefits and prestige. If that were so, this decline would soon be reversed. However, if this is to be so, there must be a genuine change of priorities in society: from the highest levels, science must be prioritized and valued. Science must become the career that kids dream of - for then the scientific and technological future of the modern world would be assured. If this is not done, in the UK and, perhaps in other countries, too, science doesn't seem to have much of a future.

If anyone has figures for other nation's regarding science education, I would welcome them: please post them below.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

Speed Learning Practical Chemistry

Ainan is now studying practical chemistry at Raffles Institution and Raffles Junior College. Regular readers will know this. What you won't know, however, is the nature of the course he is undertaking.

Ainan is doing an A level practical course, condensed into six sessions. You read right: six sessions. In six lessons he is to acquire the fundamentals of A level practical skills. This thought gives me pause. I would like to see him free to experiment, over the long term, in practical matters, exploring his deep interests in Chemistry. Yet, the present need and opportunity are for him to acquire the essence of A level Chemistry skills in only a few lessons. You may be wondering how he can do this - so perhaps I should give you a perspective.

Ainan is familiar with the theory of all that he does in the lab. Thus his experiences in the lab are no more than a physical embodiment of what he has already come to understand in theory. In addition to this, he is very physically capable, being a very hands-on kind of boy. He has always been one to build things and create structures and experiments with his hands, at home: thus the demands of practical chemistry, come naturally to him.

I would, however, like to see a long-term opportunity for him to continue to develop his practical lab experience, allowing him to explore the full measure of chemical techniques and develop the deepest expertise. After this initial course is over, we will see what arrangements can be made and might prove necessary.

For those who are not familiar with the A level: it is of an American college level standard (that is the standard typically reached in an American first degree at University).

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and five months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, fifteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children. Thanks.)

The incommensurability of education systems

I have discussed this before, but it deserves to be addressed again, in another way and through the lens of another experience.

Education systems are not the same, the world over. The clearest divide is between the American education system and the old, traditional British one, still common throughout the Commonwealth and former colonies.

The American system prides itself on breadth. At every stage from first grade to "College" - there is breadth. The British system goes for depth: at every stage from the first year of school to the last year of University, there is greater depth, than in the American system. This leads to much incomprehension when Americans seek to understand the achievements of British style educated kids - and vice-versa. Quite simply: is it possible to compare breadth with depth? Are they commensurable?

My belief is that they are not readily comparable - for where the American loses in depth, they gain in breadth - and where the British/Commonwealth/European loses in breadth they gain in depth.

There is however one way we can compare them: cognitive complexity. The cognitive demands of an old-style British education of O Levels and A Levels followed by a single subject University degree are greater than at any given age in the American system. This is not a controversial statement. It is readily seen by looking at any online US based course designed for a given age and comparing what would be demanded under the traditional British style education at the same age.

What do I mean by cognitive demand? Well, the difficulty of a subject comes in the depth: the level of concepts and techniques, skills and knowledge that must be mastered. It is in the depth that this is to be found. In breadth, one is held largely to an introductory level of knowledge, simply because so many things are being looked at. In this way, the challenge doesn't deepen - and grow, thereby.

The American system probably catches up in Graduate School (I am not sure but that seems more specialized) - but a taught Graduate degree in the US is probably little more than a taught Undergraduate degree in the old-British style single subject system. This seems obvious because it CANNOT BE OTHERWISE when the Undergraduate US degrees have such breadth in them. Because of that breadth, they are limited in depth.

I will give you a practical example of the incommensurability of these systems at work. A few months back, Ainan and I sat through a University of Berkeley, California, Physics lecture. I presume it was a first year lecture because it was so very simplistic that Ainan, six at the time, who had no formal physics background, thought it very simple indeed. In fact, I would say it was pre-O level. That is the level it was pitched at was below a course of study normally started by 14 year olds and finished by 16 year olds in the old traditional British style education. It wasn't even hard enough to be called O level. It was late primary/early secondary level - and yet that was Berkeley. This set me thinking about the nature of education systems. Raymond Ravaglia's remark that the American system "teaches to the left of the distribution" also opened my eyes as to what was happening here.

This phenomenon of great breadth and little depth in the American system - and great depth but little breadth in the traditional British system - leads to the impossibility of either side understanding the academic achievements of the other, fully. There will always be some failure to understand what it is that the other has done and can do.

American Universities recruit students directly after O level, in Singapore. That shows that O level is equal to or above High School graduation standard. The Berkeley lecture makes me wonder how much above that standard it might be.

Yet, all is not lost for the American system. The great breadth means that an American educated child should be able to handle a great variety of tasks - and there is merit in that, too. It just depends on what the culture needs.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, fourteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Comparative education: Singapore "High Schools"

In America, "High School" has a certain meaning and a certain range of connotations. Americans know what High School is: they have been there and have gathered together certain impressions and assumptions. This understanding, however, will lead to misunderstanding of the present situation.

You see, Singapore is influenced by its colonial origins. Its education is largely patterned on the UK model of O levels, A levels and specialized single subject degrees. This is not the American system. Therefore, when I used the term "High School" yesterday, it had a different meaning from what an American would understand a High School to be. Secondary Schools in Singapore, as they are more commonly known, follow a narrower base of subjects, at a higher level than any given age in the American system. What this means is that, by the end of secondary education in Singapore (a stage normally called Junior College here), a student will have reached a higher standard than would be attained in a US High School. However, it should be remembered that this higher benchmark would be in a narrower range of subjects than in the US.

For reasons I do not yet fully know, the school which is being considered for Ainan: The National University of Singapore High School for Maths and Science, otherwise known as the NUS High School for Maths and Science, is called a High School. That is odd in the Singapore landscape: for other schools do not have this title. I will learn why on Friday, I suppose.

Anyway, given the influence of the UK system on the educational practices of Singapore, this NUS High School will reach higher standards than an American High School would, at the same age. Thus it is not a comparable situation. The level of demand on Ainan, seven, would be higher than if he were in an American High School. In Singapore, students take A levels at eighteen. As I have noted before, it was said of this exam, when I was a child, that the standard was so high that it was like taking an American college degree. That is the context in which NUS High School is embedded.

I will learn more tomorrow of what the place is about. One thing should be noted, however: NUS High School is a specialist centre for the mathematically and scientifically gifted. Therefore, Ainan would be among many gifted students - who are more than twice his age. That should be an interesting experience. I hope it is a good one, and that they welcome him. We will see.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and three months, a scientific child prodigy, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, thirteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, IQ, intelligence, child genius, adult genius, baby genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Comparative education: America and UK style

Yesterday, in the Today newspaper, Singapore, there was a letter from a reader referring to a recent offer by an American University to accept students from Singapore directly after O level results. The initiative is part of a Singapore Institute of Management programme.

For readers in countries not familiar with O levels, let me explain. When I was growing up in the UK, there were two major exams taken before University - O levels (where O was for "Ordinary") and A levels (where A was for "Advanced"), there were also S levels which very few students took, where S stood for Special, I think. S level was considerably tougher than A level. In practice, hardly anyone ever took S level. (I did, along with at least one other from my school, but that is another story).

Now O levels were taken usually at 16 years old and A levels at 18 years old (and S levels too, at 18). O levels were a broad based exam with students taking many O levels. Most took at least 5, I think I took about 12. The A levels were more narrowly focussed, students usually taking only three subjects, though some, in schools like mine, took four or more.

As I understand it, American education is very different from the UK style education. In the UK specialisation occurs early, in America a high school education is a very broad affair indeed. So, too is an American college degree. In America, it is usual to study a buffet of subjects, mixing and matching in a modular fashion, with a typical student learning many different things. Not so in the UK (and many other countries which follow this style). There a student will generally study only one subject, with some exceptions, focussing narrowly and deeply on the subject matter.

So, how does American education compare with the UK/European style education? The American, at any given age, will have been exposed to a broad range of subjects, in what is, to a UK perspective, relatively little depth. The UK student, at any given age will have been exposed to a narrower range of subjects, in much greater depth.

What does this mean in comparing the education systems (and the students) of the two different countries? The story in the Today newspaper, yesterday, is very revealing. An American University is soliciting students after O level. This means, very clearly, that the standard of the first year of the American University begins at or below O level, in terms of depth and difficulty.
A UK A level, taken by 16 to 18 year olds, is beyond the level required to begin an American College Degree. Indeed, when I was growing up in England, it was commonly said that a UK A level, at that time, was equivalent to an American College Degree. It is important to know this when comparing a cultural phenomenon that exists in America with what exists in Europe.

In America, quite a few children appear to go to College early. In Europe very few do (and they are generally, but not always, somewhat older, when they do). Does this mean European children are less bright than American children? Not at all. It means that the European University degrees are more specialized, and require a higher standard in greater depth, than an American Undergraduate degree, certainly in the UK (the system I know of, from experience). A child passing a UK A level, when I was a child, was equivalent, in terms of academic demand, to a child passing an American College Degree. I don't know how American Graduate degrees compare to UK Graduate degrees, or indeed to Undergraduate degrees, but it is clear that they will be different, from the different foundations on which they are built.

The situation has changed somewhat over the years, since my childhood, but certain things remain the same. The UK system (and those that follow something similar) remains more specialized than the American system. The academic demand is narrower at any given age than the American system, but deeper in content. The American system remains broader and more flexible, in terms of choice of subjects studied.

O levels are still studied around the world, but generally not in the UK anymore, where most students take the GCSE (which is quite different, though the syllabuses are similar to O level). A levels have become modular, but still remain specialized.

It is important to understand these differences so that, when we read of the academic achievements of a particular nation, or a particular individual student or child prodigy, and the like, that we know what they mean. The American University recruiting in Singapore, has implicitly acknowledged that the O level exam equals or exceeds the standard of High School Graduation - otherwise they would not be recruiting O level students into their first year programmes. So, if one reads of a child who takes an O level at a very young age, this is equivalent in cognitive demand, one would think, to a child of the same age, completing High School Graduation in America. Similarly, a child passing A levels, at a young age, is comparable to a child passing an American College Degree, at a young age.

This situation allows us to understand why it is so rare for children to enter University in UK style University programmes, compared to the situation in America. Like is not being compared with like. The UK style University is narrower, deeper and simply a lot harder than the American University Undergraduate programme: it is a higher rung to achieve, and so fewer achieve it at a young age.

Then there are variations between Universities. The first year of the University of Cambridge's Natural Sciences course (which I took) was much, much more challenging than A level. Yet in some Universities the first year is similar in demand to A level. Again, one must understand the circumstance of each institution and situation to be able to compare one education system with another.

So, which is better, a broad American education, or a narrow, deeper UK/European one? I think it very much depends on what you are preparing for. If you want to be able to handle a wide range of situations in life, and have a broad perspective on things, perhaps the American system has the edge. If you want to be able to meet a difficult challenge, equipped with the deepest of knowledge (such as might be required in many professional situations), I feel the UK style University has the advantage, at least at the Undergraduate level, assuming that particular challenge doesn't require knowledge of more than one discipline.

I debate the merits of each system, because I face a choice for my sons: how do I want them to be educated - American style - or UK style? The choice exists because American style programmes are spreading around the world, as outposts of American Universities - reaching even here, in Singapore.

The first step in making a choice is in understanding the differences. I hope this article has made some of those differences clear.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, my scientific child prodigy son, aged seven years and one month, or his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Note that I am unable to update the guide at present because of problems with my blogger interface, which doesn't allow me to edit posts. I am trying to resolve the situation. In the meantime, you will find recent posts in the sidebar. Thanks.)