Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Concern over GCSE

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

1987 Phys. Bull. 38 3

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9112/38/1/003)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 159.178.22.27
This content was downloaded on 14/07/2016 at 15:32

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Phys. Bull. 38 (1987). Printed in the UK
LETTERS
Letters to the Editor should be as short as
possible and Physics Bulletin reserves the
right to shorten letters if space demands.
Honest debate
J H Fremlin and P E Hodgson (Physics
Bulletin October 1986 p406) are con-
cerned with different aspects of the
nuclear power debate. As Professor
Fremlin points out, physicists have a
duty to provide clear and unbiased
information to the public and govern-
ment. His own contribution, however,
falls into the common trap of not com-
paring like with like. There is really
nothing to be gained by the compari-
son of 20 to 30 deaths in the UK result-
ing from an accident in the USSR, with
the effects of operating a coal-fired
power station for 70 years in this coun-
try. Surely a fairer assessment of risks
would be obtained by examining the
effects on us here of the current opera-
tion of such a coal-fired plant in the
USSR.
Dr Hodgson's concern is about the
quality of the public debate. Of his
recommended books I have only so far
read Fred Hoyle's Energy or Extinc-
tion?, and on this basis I seriously
question whether such a choice does
provide an objective scientific perspec-
tive. I refer in particular to the section
in the book where those opposed to
nuclear power are dismissed as part of
a communist plot to undermine our
economy. If there is distorted reporting
of the issues by the media, it is no
worse than this.
An honest and balanced debate
demands that physicists of all positions
be self-critical in their attempts at
unbiased appraisal. Not doing so will
only result in an undermining of the
public's respect for us as detached and
objective observers.
D Infield November 1986
Didcot, Oxfordshire
The rot has already
set in!
I would like to amplify, on a personal
basis, some of the points made by P H
Bligh {Physics Bulletin September 1986
pp363-4). There are people of consid-
erable influence who read Physics Bul-
letin - w i l l they, on reading this letter,
attempt to do something so that I don't
feel as if I'm talking to a brick wall?
I am 32 years old, have an HNC in
applied physics (two distinctions), a
first-class honours degree in physics
(Sussex), a PhD (Surrey) and nine
years' industrial experience. I am
unemployed and have been for the
past four months. I won't go into the
boring details about CVs going out left,
right and centre and companies not
even bothering to reply (are some of
the adverts even real?) but here are a
couple of new factors to consider.
Due to lack of sales within my last
company I was made redundant from
my job as a product manager. My em-
ployers suggested I try the USA, sev-
eral employment agencies suggested
the same thing, and yet a large number
of people here in the UK still bemoan
the 'brain drain'. I know they exist, I
heard them again the other night on TV.
However, I don't want to work in the
USA; I want to work in the UK.
Surprisingly, I have had a couple of
interviews. There was a shock-horror
reaction that I would want in excess of
£13000 pa. With my qualifications and
industrial experience (mostly in the
semiconductor R and D environment),
am I asking too much? Before coming
to a conclusion on that one, in one year
I grossed over £20000 and had a car to
boot, as a scientific equipment sales-
man. I left after eighteen months
because the job didn't require a brain.
I joined the company which has now
made me redundant.
It is clear to me that at the moment
my skills are simply not required, and it
therefore seems a little silly to start
getting upset at the falling numbers of
trained physicists when they are not
wanted. In ten years' time, if there is
any industry left worth talking about,
we shall have to start importing brains,
and that will be expensive.
G J Parker September 1986
Longworth, Oxon
I read with interest the letter 'Member-
ship - a view to a kill' from Dr P H Bligh
and in particular his views on the role
of the physics technician. The decline
in BTEC applied physics courses must
be of some concern to British industry
and therefore also to The Institute of
Physics. I believe that most Chartered
Physicists and Engineers are sure of
the need for good and qualified techni-
cian grades. They are probably the
people who will put into practice the
ideas and original thinking of their
chartered colleagues.
Technicians are often labelled as
failed engineers or physicists but this is
far from true. There are many physics
or engineering technicians holding
responsible positions in industry and
the academic establishments. They are
often employed in the role of linking
the research scientist with the shop
floor.
Table 3 of The Institute of Physics
Remuneration Survey 1986 would sug-
gest that Associate Members are not
far behind Members, on average, in
positions of responsibility. Perhaps one
grade position, if salary can be taken as
the criterion!
Engineers have three grades of
registration: CEng, TEng and EngTech.
Most Associate Members of The Insti-
tute of Physics have similar qualifica-
tions to those held by Technician
Engineers but our Institute does not
offer their members the same recogni-
tion. Why?
Data presented in the May issue of
Physics Bulletin show that 29.6% of the
total Institute membership are Associ-
ate Members. Surely they should be
allowed to let the world know that they
are members of The Institute of Phys-
ics. Restoration of the designatory title
AM InstP would allow just this. Such
recognition by the Institute may pres-
ent just the incentive necessary to
encourage more prospective techni-
cians to enrol for BTEC courses.
H J Beavon September 1986
Chipstead, Surrey
Dr L Cohen replies:
The question of designatory letters for
Associate Members of the Institute has
been raised several times with the
Privy Council but they have refused to
allow it. The use of TechEng and
EngTech is a separate issue but might
become relevant to us if and when the
Institute is granted Nominated Body
status by the Engineering Council.
Concern over GCSE
John Lewis' response (Physics Bulletin
August 1986 p323) to our concern
about reduction of content in school
physics courses is essentially that 'the
loss of some content is a small price to
pay if it is going to encourage more to
study physics, perhaps more to
become physics teachers'. We, too, are
concerned about the need to attract
pupils and teachers to the subject - the
debate is about means, not ends- but

300 MM GRATING
MONOCHROMATOR
CZERNY DESIGN.
- with adjustable precision slits for
in- and outlet 0.01 to 3.0 mm
graduated up to 0.01 mm
- six interchangeable gratings
for U.V. - VISIBLE and IR.
1200 lines/mm to 50 lines/mm
- scanning device and accessories available
Also obtainable from Pleuger
- high precision
diffraction gratings.
- Monochromators
- Black granite tables
Q PLEUGER
Turnhoutsebaan511
B-2110WIJNEGEM-BELGIUM
Tel. 32-3/350.02.11
Telex 31.575
For further details circle 3 on reply sheet
we have two serious worries over the
GCSE innovations which he endorses.
First, the 'price' is not small, and it is
being paid exclusively by the most able
pupils. The content reduction is no
mere trimming of fat, but a widespread
excision of the more demanding and
stimulating topics. This represents a
real loss for able pupils in every
school, and should worry everyone
concerned about education. Alas, any
attempt to point it out provokes talk of
elitism and ivory towers.
Our other fear is that, though the
price will be paid, the goods may not
be delivered. John Lewis writes
confidently of the achievements of
GCSE - an uninitiated reader might be
surprised to discover that the courses
are only now beginning - but in fact it
is all based on hypotheses at the
moment. Who knows whether pupils of
all abilities can be adequately stretched
by a common syllabus? Whether
emphasising 'process skills' will pro-
duce any worthwhile, transferable abil-
ity? Whether 'applications' and 'social
implications' will motivate pupils
where content has failed? Or whether
any of this will attract physicists into
the teaching profession? We have our
doubts on many aspects, but only the
experimental test now under way
will tell.
Which brings us to A-level. Is it too
late to urge that a little scientific scep-
ticism and caution be applied to this
great educational experiment? We
would suggest that no major changes
to A-level should be made until there
has been a thorough appraisal of the
effects of GCSE.
Our fear is that there will be no such
caution: the fashionable bandwagon
will roll on and on, and in ten years'
time we shall realise that much has
been lost and little gained.
H S Fricker October 1986
I R Gomersall
Bradford Grammar School,
Bradford
Mr J L Lewis replies:
It is understandable that there are
apprehensions about the impact of
GCSE and the warnings from Mr
Fricker and Mr Gomersall are timely.
However, the Secretary of State and
the Secondary Examinations Council
have always maintained that standards
will not be lowered for the more able
and now we have to wait and see what
will happen in practice. GCSE must
have some impact on A-level and I am
pleased to learn that the Joint Commit-
tee on Physics Education of the Royal
Society and The Institute of Physics
has set up a working party to consider
this. The views of Mr Fricker and Mr
Gomersall will certainly be considered,
as will those of anyone else who cares
to write to Mr M G Ebison in the Educa-
tion Department at Institute Headquar-
ters, London.
Risk assessment
Recent correspondence has dealt with
the difficulties in informing the popula-
tion of the true risks of nuclear energy
compared with other risks. I wonder
how far this difficulty arises from the
attitude of the mass media which
attract the public with sensation. The
menace of fall-out from an invisible
radiation cloud is excellent copy. One
can see the headline when St George
rallies forth to deal with a menacing
dragon, but not when it appears that
the dragon is really far less dangerous
than a pet dog.
To give a simple example, several
weeks after the Swedish scientists first
made public the fall-out from Cher-
nobyl, they published an article in
Nature giving fuller details and stating
inter alia 'The radiation doses due to
the fall-out will be small compared
with those from natural sources (such
as radon emission in buildings) and
will not cause significant health
effects'. At the time when the Trades
Union Congress was discussing nuc-
lear risks I wrote a letter to The Times
enclosing the article and adding a short
comment on the dangers of acid rain,
up to then ignored. The editor did not
consider it merited publicatio/V.
We have taken too relaxed an
attitude to the most misleading attacks,
and confined our replies largely to the
scientific and engineering fraternity. A
more positive approach is needed with
immediate challenges to all mis-
statement, properly directed at the
average member of the public. A public
campaign on a large scale is needed to
put the matter in perspective - compar-
ing man-made radiation doses with
those occurring naturally, and nuclear
risks with those occurring in other
industries or fields of activity. To be
effective this long-overdue campaign
would have to operate through the
mass media, with comparisons with
other risks such as football matches
and air crashes.
A Charlesby November 1986
Editor-in-Chief, Radiation Physics
and Chemistry
Addendum
The review of Understanding Relativity
by Stanley Goldberg, which appeared
in the October 1986 issue of Physics
Bulletin (p427), gave the publisher as
Birkhauser. However, apart from in
Switzerland and North America, the
book is published by Oxford University
Press, at a price of £20 (ISBN 0 19
853910 X).