Britain's economy needs rocket science

Speaking to a conference organised by Reform on the decline of maths and science teaching Michael Gove will highlight the importance of science to economic growth and Britain's failure under Labour to prepare for competition from China and India.  Here are four key extracts from his excellent And the answer is Rocket Science speech:

Science is the key to growth: "I love the arts – and Britain’s attractiveness as a nation is built on our artistic heritage and cultural leadership. Design is important – not just a as away of adding value but as a process which makes our life at once easier and richer.  And an emphasis on service is crucial – in a world where time is precious and the public square seems more impersonal, coarser even, anything which makes individuals feel more valued, their needs respected, and which strengthens relationships, is vital.  But the real innovation which will ultimately drive growth in the economy is going to be generated and sustained by science, technology, engineering and mathematics.... To the question – how do we make our futures richer – the answer genuinely is rocket science... The hard sciences are the foundation of growth... They enable growth like nothing else... Whether its new software... New applications for consumer electronics... New methods of getting us from a to b... New methods of limiting damage to the globe... New methods of getting capital to where its needed... New financial instruments... Better tennis rackets... Trainers which are – literally- cooller... New cures for life-threatening diseases... New learning platforms... New versions of Grand Theft Auto... New graphics in the latest Spielberg blockbuster... New hope for the childless... Or sight for the blind and hearing for those in a world of silence... it’s mathematics and science which will generate these innovations – and keep our economy on the path of growth and opportunity."

But science standards in the UK are slipping: "In the most recent international league tables we slipped from fourth to fourteenth in science and 8th to 24th in mathematics.  The fantastic work done by John Marks for Reform’s paper today reinforces the cause for concern about standards.  He points out that questions are less rigorous.  He shows us that exams lead candidates to solutions instead of requiring independent mathematical reasoning.  He demonstrates that traditional algebra and geometry, as well as proper proofs are no longer so central, and by drawing attention to the fact that its now possible to secure a C grade – a pass – with just 20% of questions answered correctly John has blown the whistle on Government claims of relentless improvement."

Fewer Britons are studing maths and science: "The number doing physics A level has fallen by over 50% over the past twenty years.  The number of maths A levels has fallen by 15% in the past decade.  We have fewer than 3,000 physics undergraduates.  The number of physics and chemistry graduates has fallen by over 25% in a decade.  Between 1994 and 2004, more than 30 per cent of the physics departments in Britain disappeared.  And all this has been happening at a time of university expansion overall. So even as more and more people are going to university, fewer and fewer in absolute terms are pursuing these hard science subjects."

Some non-directive policy remedies: "A school system such as we envisage – with greater freedoms for headteachers – would mean in-demand professionals with maths and science qualifications would be able to command much higher salaries for their skills.  We would allow heads to pay higher salaries and bonuses to specialist teachers from day one – within budgets over which they had greater control.  We would also allow heads to enter their students for exams which the Government currently doesn’t allow to count in league tables – such as the IGCSE – so parents and pupils have the opportunity to pursue courses they consider more rigorous and satisfying.  We would reform teacher training to make it easier for scientists, mathematicians and people of real ability to get into the classroom without having to jump through the current academic and bureaucratic hoops."

A PDF of Michael Gove's full speech.

> Tony Emmerson's policy to promote Biology, physics and chemistry, not single science - was accepted as part of ConservativeHome's 100 policies process.

Comments

[boing boing]

This is really really good.

[Tony Makara]

Very good speech from Michael Gove. If Britain is to become a nation of producers again we need hard skills for hard industries. Our entire society, from economics to education, has listed too far towards the arts and away from the sciences. We, as a nation, need to be at the cutting edge of technology, we cannot continue to play a passive role in the field of innovation while nations like China set the pace and leave us trailing behind. A balanced economy will require a workforce with balanced skills, it is time to bring the sciences back.

[Deborah]

My 14 year old is bored rigid with the GCSE syllabus. The science modules are social engineering propaganda - opinions on GM and MMR instead of basic scientific knowledge. The maths course focuses on guessing the answer instead of mathematical techniques and logic. Even RE is about drugs and sex in the media rather than religious knowledge!
The school would love to take the IGCSE, which is nearer to the old O'levels, but the government won't let them - probably because it would show how far standards have fallen.

Our education system is desperately in need of a change of govt.

[Diversity]

This is a little reminscent of Harold Wilson's calling for "the white heat of technology" at a time when the frontier of technology had moved on from high temperature processes. Michael Gove is on the learning curve, but is perhaps as well that he is likely to have to wait a couple of years before putting policies into practice.

[Paul D]

The trouble with science is that there's no money in it (I speak as a Chemistry graduate)

If we want to attract people to do these subjects then the jobs at the end need to make it worth their while. Quite how this is done (in the case of Chemistry) when a lot of chemical companies are struggling with high raw material costs is another question altogether

[Deborah]

Is Diversity trying to suggest that we have moved on from science and maths?

[Yogi]

I have been bleating about the death of Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Engineering in these pages for the past two years. I also very strongly feel that the shift towards the soft degree courses (and upgrading many polytechnics to university status) has diluted the overall funding available to Science.
The remedy is simple. Reduce the funding available to the soft degrees (and shut some of these mickey mouse uni down) and divert resources to proper education. There is no need for every other school leaver to have a degree.

Go on Michael and be bold.

[Phil H]

A low cost way of promoting science, engineering and mathematics at University level would be for HMG to pay the fees for students of such courses in full whilst withdrawing any form of financial support for students who wish to read for "media-studies" and similar, with perhaps a half-way point for languages, history and other traditional, but academically rigorous, degrees.

Paul D's comments about the need for well paying jobs in science and engineering would still need to be addressed, mind

[Allan]

This is marvelous. Gove hit the crux of the matter right on the spot! I remain hopeful, but I won't be ecstatic until Gove delivers on these pledges after we sweep into government.

[Deborah]

Have just read the whole speech - it really is excellent and contains some stunning nuggets:
"Local authorities, town hall bureaucracies, employ 400 “mathematics
consultants” – that’s nearly three full time professionals for each local
authority area. And yet, according to the Government’s own report,
“the depth of subject knowledge of many consultants is insufficient for them to operate effectively as coaches and mentors for practitioners in schools”.
And remember we’re talking about primaries here."

That goes a long way to explaining what has gone so very wrong with maths teaching.

[Yogi]

Fully agree with Phil H.

[ToryJim]

What is the point of encouraging school leavers to enrol on a Chemistry / Physics / Maths degree if we don't also find a way to encourage more 16-year olds to [want to] study A[S] levels in Chemistry, Physics and Maths?

Even when I was at school and was choosing which A-levels to do (getting on for 20 years ago...), Chemistry, Physics and Maths were seen as "hard" subjects (wonder why that was??)... and it was an almost universal belief that it was "easier to get good grades" if you opted for I.T. or Business Studies instead.

[chrisblore]

I agree that Science has obviously got a key part to play in the modern world and that Britain should be aspiring to play a major role in the industry if our economy is find its feet again. However, I think there is a danger of heading to the other extreme. I was fortunate enough to go to a grammar school that several years ago became a "Science College" and therefore received extra funding to develop its facilities, with the proviso that it also made them available to other schools and members of the community. Although I suppose I was fairly bright, I found that I was by no means the most scientifically or mathematically gifted at my school and as a result did not enjoy the subject as much as others. Furthermore, we were forced to take a technology subject to GCSE, something that I despised as I was frankly hopeless and knew that I would not want to pursue a career in the field under any circumstances. My main passions and strengths were in the arts and languages. However, as a result of the science college status, it was almost as though some of the other subjects were being overlooked at the expense of science. This, I believe is simply wrong. Some people are gifted scientists which is fine, others are not. I definitely fitted into the latter category and resented having it shoved down my throat! Only now that they have gained "language college" status is the balance being redressed at my old school.

[chrisblore]

Phil H, I have to disagree. Whilst I agree that something has to be done about the number of "joke subjects" being offered by universities, the uptake of which is usually very high indeed, how can you say that somebody's degree should be 'worth' anymore than other degrees involving similar workloads? Do lawyers play a less important role in society than scientists then?

I was having a similar discussion the other day with some friends of mine who study English. They have found out that they will be having maybe 3 or 4 contact hours per week, although they will have a lot of essay and dissertation work to complete. The scientists on the other hand have closer to 30 hours per week. The result of this is that "arts" students effectively subsidise the scientists already through their tuition fees as their departments' expenses are not as extensive. I agree that more people need to be encouraged to take up the sciences but financial penalties are definitely not the answer.

[ToryJim]

how can you say that somebody's degree should be 'worth' anymore than other degrees involving similar workloads

AFAIK the government offers a financial incentive to those who train to become teachers. This is presumably because we need more trained teachers. Why should this not be extended to scientists and/or engineers?

By the way, what do we think would happen to the UK's economy if we experienced an acute shortage of history graduates?

[Pooter]

And not just rocket science: it saddens me that, at a time when nuclear power is being seriously considered once again, most of the expertise and manufacturing capacity is to now to be found in France. Energy Business Review March 2007 This was a field in which Britain once led the world.

[James Lees]

One of Tony Benn's worse decisions was to cancel the British space launch programme to save Concord. It is time we put our efforts back into 'big' science to enthuse the next generation. We should back a new British space launch system (HOTOL?), space telescopes and a British equivalent to MIT. Without science we will be reduced to selling burgers and dodgy mortgages to each other.

[Hardcore Conservative]

The idea of recruiting industry professionals into the classroom sounds good. There is just one small problem. Something called the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

Once set up it will require anyone who works or has contact with children or vulnerable adults to register and have their details registered on a central database. It is expected eventually to hold the names of around 11,000,000 people. This database will be overseen independently off course by “experts” (the usual left leaning, PC great and good no doubt).

If you are deemed unsuitable (no conviction necessary) you will be “de-registered” and will not be able to work in your chosen profession.

Most of us who have to submit to the usual CRB checks (that are becoming increasingly common place) agree to it through gritted teeth as it is there for the common good. But being compelled to sign up to a database set up by the present shower that passes for government, and overseen by the PC brigade, is altogether a different prospect. What started out as (probably) designing a system with the best of intentions to protect the weak and vulnerable, is now likely to turn into another opportunity to control people. How long will it be before an injustice occurs with that many people being regulated?

Ask yourself this: if you were a professional scientist who was not on a government database but had to go on one in order to work with youngsters, set against the background of possible mistakes occurring and this government’s poor track record, would you want to go into the classroom and teach or just keep your head down?

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Closedconsultations/DH_080437

PDF download at foot of page.

[Hardcore Conservative]

Try again with the web address:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/
Closedconsultations/DH_080437

[chrisblore]

ToryJim, I knew the government already granted concessions such as "key workers" housing provision in cities and the like, but I'm not really clued up with regards their actual qualification. Yes, obviously some degree of financial incentive could be made but a total subsidy of their tuition fees seems completely unfair to those who do not want to/are not sufficiently gifted to pursue a Science degree.

A national shortage of history graduates would not of course be disastrous, nor was I suggesting that but there would be a shortage of history teachers with sufficient qualifications! On the other hand, take economics or law (which happens to be my own degree) which are two arts subjects but are specialised in nature. Complaints are often directed at the law for being a profession that is too elitist in terms of the demographic from which it recruits. If people saw that they would be significantly better off financially (in the short term as students in any case) by choosing a science degree, this would undoubtedly have the effect of putting off good quality candidates. You cannot have a system whereby people are incentivised and end up "shopping" for degrees according to how much money it's going to cost them.

[Jim Tague]

I work in the semiconductor industry and absultely agree with Mr Gove and many of the comments posted here.

Despite considerable help and assistance from my parents, I messed up at school, the RAF offered me a second chance, I buckled down, worked hard, had the joy of being part of and working on the cutting edge hardware of military fast jets.

From there, making the microchips of the future...chemistry, physics and maths, all required to some degree each day.

I've just encouraged my son to take maths, physics and computer studies as his three main "A" Level subjects, I just hope I'm doing the right thing, as here in the North East far too many of our kids are forced to leave the area to fulfill even a small level of aspiration.

[RichardJ]

"By the way, what do we think would happen to the UK's economy if we experienced an acute shortage of history graduates?"

Lots of us go into law so you'd find yourself with a shortage of lawyers. Try running a multimillion pound business without any legal advice and then see what happens.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Good speech Gove.Now let's see concrete proposals to address the problem.

[Guy Atherton]

Chris Blore - you ask if a lawyer is of less benefit to society than a scientist. My answer, is that in general yes. The same certainly is true for Scientist vs Accountant. We have far to many accountants earning large salaries for knowing little and running companies on the bottom line only.

[chrisblore]

Guy, surely that is a massive generalisation. There are I'm sure many scientists who are not very good at their jobs (as I most likely would be were I a scientist!), just as there are in many professions. I wholeheartedly disagree though with any attempt to incentivise through financial means as one of the most important aspects of study, in my experience, is that you enjoy your course. Why should you be penalised for picking something you enjoy and are more likely to excel in rather than taking the offer of a "free degree"?

[Guy Atherton]

Chris - it is harder to become a Scientist. Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology are not none as being the hard subjects for nothing. So yes I generalised a little but it is easier to become an accountant AND they get paid more in general - not fair for the amount of time and intellectual effort required to gain scientific qualifications.

[Guy Atherton]

People will tend to the easier subjects if the reward/costs are the same. Human nature, therefore incentives and social status are needed.
Britain has a glorious history of engineers and scientist. I don`t recall any famous accountants or lawyers (except Cherie Booth!)

[Bazzer]

When I was at secondary school in the early eighties, Physics, Biology and Chemistry involved hands on experiments in the lab. We made electric circuits and dropped heavy weights in Physics, we dissected rats and cockroaches in Biology and we mixed up all sorts of chemicals in a test tube and heated them over a bunsen burner in Chemistry but I belive that in schools now-a-days, with ridiculous health and safety laws, the kids just have to sit and watch the teacher (or class room assistant) doing most of the fun stuff. Very boring.

[Bazzer]

At Guy Atherton.... and these famous British engineers are starting to come under PC scrutiny so not to influence our kids in the wrong way - what do I mean???..There is a famous photo of Isambard Kingdon Brunel standing in front of a massive chain whilst smoking a cigar. I believe that schools cannot now use this photo because he is smoking !!!! There are also versions where the cigar has been digitally removed from the photo.

What hope do our kids have when there are people like this incharge of their education??

See here http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/upload/img_400/D0283.jpg

[Joe F]

My sons are at school now and I deal alot with academics in my work. I have a few comments

1. State schools are basically failing because of the chase for high results without consideration for what subject. Hence many public schools now do IGCSE or the International Bac, as GCSEs are now ludicrously easy to get high grades in.

2. In sciences there is not nearly enough hands on work in state schools- we moved our sons from state to private sector and the difference is unbelievable. Of course much of the problem is no state primary has science teachers and even in secondaries many teachers of science are not actually scientists.

3. Selection needs to be looked at differently. Right now the really bright are not catered for in the state system, they are bored stiff and often causing trouble because of it. On the other hand the bottom sets are sitting GCSEs where at best they can get a D grade- ie if they get 100%, they fail (given everyone regards a C as the lowest pass), so they are failed too. We need a serious gifted program- does not exist at present- maybe bring back assisted places? We also need an education system that works for the less academic.

4. Universities have closed down many science departments partly because of lack of demand from students, but also because it is expensive to teach, and they get paid the same to teach a science (lots of labs etc) or an arts subject (pile them high in lecture theaters). On top of that the research assessments have concentrated research funding, which Unis use to subsidize teaching, on less universities, so others can no longer cross subsidize. How about paying Universities more to teach sciences?

[Alex Swanson]

Try running a multimillion pound business without any legal advice and then see what happens.

You'll last longer than running it without IT staff.

[Eleanor McHugh]

Teaching the sciences isn't just about creating research physicists and industrial chemists, because the vast majority of maths and science graduates end up in other disciplines ranging from software development to financial analysis. These are skills that are transferrable.

We need a root-and-branch reform of maths and science teaching in this country, from primary school right through to University. Put the genuine excitement of scientific investigation back into teaching and base it in hard facts.

Increase funding to Universities for science departments so that there's an incentive for teaching these subjects, and give science students additional financial assistance. Many have contact time equivalent to a full-time job which limits the opportunities for funding their studies through part-time employment, and those who pursue a career in industrial science will earn just enough to have to repay their student loans.

Looking beyond education we also need more innovation grants and venture capital opportunities - especially at the seed capital stage - to help high-tech startups develop innovative products, creating an incentive for ambitious students to enter these disciplines.

[Eleanor McHugh]

Teaching the sciences isn't just about creating research physicists and industrial chemists, because the vast majority of maths and science graduates end up in other disciplines ranging from software development to financial analysis. These are skills that are transferrable.

We need a root-and-branch reform of maths and science teaching in this country, from primary school right through to University. Put the genuine excitement of scientific investigation back into teaching and base it in hard facts.

Increase funding to Universities for science departments so that there's an incentive for teaching these subjects, and give science students additional financial assistance. Many have contact time equivalent to a full-time job which limits the opportunities for funding their studies through part-time employment, and those who pursue a career in industrial science will earn just enough to have to repay their student loans.

Looking beyond education we need more innovation grants and venture capital opportunities - especially at the seed capital stage - to help high-tech start-ups develop innovative products, creating an incentive for ambitious students to enter these disciplines.

Then there's the cultural divide. The naive faith in information automation that currently seems to dominate government and the civil service is ample proof of the need to get more scientists involved in our political institutions. How this nation can expect to thrive and prosper in an age of increasing technological change when the vast majority of its governing classes are drawn from a non-scientific background is beyond me.

[ToryJim]

Posted by: Chris Blore | June 02, 2008 at 19:12:
...some degree of financial incentive could be made but a total subsidy of their tuition fees seems completely unfair to those who do not want to/are not sufficiently gifted to pursue a Science degree.

Err... why would this be unfair? Reality check: what's the average annual salary of a science PhD graduate? What's the average salary of a someone working in the City?

Posted by: RichardJ | June 02, 2008 at 21:21:
"By the way, what do we think would happen to the UK's economy if we experienced an acute shortage of history graduates?"

Lots of us go into law so you'd find yourself with a shortage of lawyers. Try running a multimillion pound business without any legal advice and then see what happens.

Sorry, RichardJ, but do you know how hard it would be to pursue a career in science without a science degree? Last time I checked the requirements for a career in law you don't have to have a a history degree.

[Angelo Basu]

There's a massive oversupply of law graduates many of whom have next to no chance of qualifying into either of the legal professions. As a lawyer myself and one who found enough to enjoy in it to do self-funded postgraduate study I would say that most of those no-hope law graduates are completely wasting their time and money studying the subject because law in itself is not that interesting or relevant to study as a degree without intending to use it in practice and unlike most other subjects, by definition will become obsolete knowledge for non-practitioners within a few years of graduation.

Law courses are also one of, if not the cheapest degrees for universities to teach, particularly now that it is no longer even necessary to have a paper library of law reports. Lots of weaker new universities have found it very easy to raise revenues by getting in a lot of no-hoper law students; and it is attractive to such students with poor entry qualifications because it just sounds a great deal less mickey mouse than the other courses they would be qualified for.

There are plenty of science and maths graduates who take the conversion course and subsequently qualify as lawyers but few if any going in the other direction. If free science/maths (etc) degrees diverted suitably qualified poor students from spending £9k in fees to do Law degrees so that they could do a science degree and then decide at 21 whether to spend £5k on the law conversion course (or get it for free if they could secure a training contract) this would be better than the current system as at least a proportion of those students might continue as scientists because it was enjoyable. I certainly would have!

[Alex Swanson]

Can I point out also that while it is obviously expensive to teach experimental sciences, it doesn't have to be expensive to teach maths. I finished an OU Maths & Stats degree last year and all that was required was books and some software (mostly commercial but some at least of which could have been replaced with open source). Of course I did get through an awful lot of paper . . .

[ToryJim]

Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 04, 2008 at 15:34:
Can I point out also that while it is obviously expensive to teach experimental sciences, it doesn't have to be expensive to teach maths. I finished an OU Maths & Stats degree...

IMHO we shouldn't let the teaching costs dictate what we fund.

Over in the USA, students pay "megabucks" (by our standards) to go to Harvard or Yale.

Why?

Is it because they the students/parents assume they'll get a return on their investment... (or are they deluded and are simply wasting their money?)

Back to .uk - should we really want to encourage Open University degrees purely because they are a low cost alternative? FWIW - I have nothing against the OU, but I don't think cost should be its USP...

[alexw]

I have to question whether there truly is a scientist shortage. Looking at the figures from the prospects website only 20% of degreed science (chemistry) graduates go into industrial research. Here's a direct quote -

"Although the number of graduates in the subject rose, there was little evidence of a large demand for physics degrees in the economy, as some have suggested. The unemployment rate for physics graduates six months after receiving their degree went down 0.4 percentage points, but physicists were still the most likely graduates from all the major science disciplines to be unemployed, with 8.7%, or over one in twelve, out of work six months after graduating. Physics graduates were more likely to go into the finance and business industry or enter management than to find work in the sciences. 27% of physics graduates went on to higher degrees, up 2.5 percentage points from last year, and this raises questions about the level at which the demand for physics skills by employers truly lies.

There was an increase in the unemployment rate of chemistry graduates of 0.5 percentage points. 6.3% of first degree chemists were out of work six months after graduation. But the most popular area of employment for chemistry graduates remains scientific research and development, taking 22.2% of working graduates, down 0.8 percentage points from last year. Nearly a quarter of all chemistry graduates, 24.8%, went on to a higher degree in the UK, rising 1.1 percentage points from last year. With unemployment rising, and work at first degree level in the sciences falling, this again prompts questions about the real issues of shortage of chemistry graduates."

This suggests that either there is an oversupply, or that possibly the better graduates that employers need, find science based careers unattractive.

Regarding the first of these two points where do the figures suggesting a shortage arise from? I hear numbers quoted but with no source given. I would be very hesitant to accept figures supplied by employers themselves as they have a vested interest in having a larger labour supply to choose from.

Regarding the second point, science careers are well known to be generally low paying and having poor long term career prospects. This is particularly true in light of the degree of skill and ability needed to be a "good" scientist. If companies wish to attract high quality candidates into these fields they must be willing to pay credible salaries. This also links into the first point in that if there is a shortage we would expect to see salaries rise, which we have not. Could these companies perhaps be using a supply myth to increase candidate numbers and/or quality, while at the same time depressing wages? With the ever growing demand of corporations to increase profits this would not surprise me.