Why does BIOLOGY A2 cover so much when Britain needs more biologists?

[seekinginspiration]

I think Britain needs more biologists, there must be a way round this problem, what is it?

Biology A2 covering everything puts teenagers off science.
I don't have any children taking Biology but my eldest kids both had/have loads of friends who took or are taking this subject. I don't understand why A* GCSE students in history, art, media studies, physics and almost every subject (except chemistry) go on to get A-C grades in the subject at A2; but not in BIOLOGY. So many of my kids friends taking Biology end up in my kitchen in despair with their D or worse grades? For the January exams DD1s boyfriend got Ds and says for one exam they had not covered that part of the syllabus. BTW I know why they are in my kitchen.

If he was the only boy who had sat in my kitchen in the same situation I'd think it must be him, but this seems to have been going on for 6 years.

My nephew took an A level exam about 6 years ago which was completely about fish and marine life - the teacher had told them not to revise marine life as the exams would definitely not cover marine life. Why does BIOLOGY A2 cover so much?

Oh and I don't know why I've got numbers and signs in my post - I copied and pasted my preview message into word to check for spelling errors and them put it on a new post - hey that's a mystery I can live with, but I would like to know what you think about the Biology A2 problem.

Mmm ,interesting .
DS is on verge of throwing the towel in ( yr 13 ) ,mainly because so demoralised by his poor grades .
Biology is a big stumbling block ,though TBH the chemistry and Physics also tricky .
What do our teacher community think ?

Perhaps it is because people take biology thinking that it will be an easier science than physics or chemistry, and so they get a shock when they see how much molecular biology is involved.

I'm not a teacher, but did do a biology degree. However, I did it with very little science grounding, so I had to take a GCSE in chemistry at the same time as my A' Levels. Then when at university had to fill in the missing gaps of A' Level chemistry, physics and maths in my own time. It was possible to do, and I did do well in my degree, but it was not easy.

I'm not sure is just an A2 problem.

My dd threw the towel in last year along side half of the class when doing AS. Luckily we convinced her to try again this year in a different school.

Second time round has allowed her to understand where it went horribly wrong and so far this is what she has seen:

-there is a big gap between combined (double) sciences GCSEs and A level that is not filled at the beginning of A level (less so in single subject GCSEs).

-First term: tests,practice paper

-Jan: the first set of exams (or mocks) with the disastrous consequences of poor results. So now the pressure begins.

-Feb/March:practices papers and tests again followed by those awful controlled assessments.

Dd says her biggest frustration is having to learn the correct phraseology for an exam rather than enjoy learning the subjects. Her second frustration is that the science we do at home with our much younger ds(10) is more fun and interesting than her practicals. Thirdly she finds the textbooks not comprehensive enough, so she now uses our ancient uni textbooks!

Hmm I don't know if it's different now, but when I did Biology A-Level in 2000, it was separated into 6 modules, I know boards vary and some did the straight, no course work and exam at the end variety.

Tbh it was the easiest of the 3 A-levels I took, although hardest to get high module marks iyswim. I didn't enjoy it tbh, I found the environmental/animal behaviour etc modules deathly dull.

Maybe the answer is to offer different biology A-levels, featuring a narrower range of topics, but in more depth. I don't think the leap from GCSE to A-Level in biology is any harder than Chemistry or Maths tbh.

I think all science A levels are difficult because there is a jump from the science GCSEs (especially if your GCSE is lots of multiple choice questions on what Anne and Kevin think about immunisation) and the modular system doesn't allow for time to consolidate knowledge. DD2 is taking Chemistry A2 this year and it just seems such a rush at the moment to finish the syllabus and get the assessed practicals done. It feels as if she has only just finished exams and we are getting ready for more.

Also there can be a problem with recruiting specialist teachers - DD2 is at a school sixth form and there are 4 other school sixth forms in our town, I really wish there was a sixth form college instead with teachers that just taught A level. DD1 had the most fabulous biology teacher for A level and it made such a difference and was probably a big factor in her decision to study it at university.

Does anyone know students taking social biology? About 8 years ago I worked in a 6th form college library and the college offered an alternative A level: Social Biology. That might not be the exact title, but close. Those students seemed much happier than the straight biology students. I assisted students in the research and the syllabus appeared to include a lot of psychology and sociology as well as the physiology you would expect. It just seemed a better course for those who already knew they were interested in human biology and not plant or animal biology.

I'm wondering if AS biology should cover all the biology topics but at A2 the students could select - human, social, animal biology. I worked with a teacher who had zoo-ology A level and she raved about the syllabus.

There is a reason I want the "education power people" to focus on the UK's needs and the future of youngsters in Britain. Biologists can earn a living wage.

About 2 years ago a radio report said 40,000 student passed media studies. The way the piece was phrased implied the qualification was a degree. Even if it was an exaggeration there simply are not 40,000 new jobs in the media industry each year.

The current AS and A2 structure is certainly putting young people off science. Greater choice and variation might be a way forward. A few years ago I decided I really wanted to change direction and looked at retraining. Almost every job I was drawn to required A level biology. Now this seems to be happening to young people I know in their mid twenties. Scientists, nurses, health visitors, audiologists, speech therapists are in great demand. They can take their skills, knowledge and experience overseas and support themselves. Scientists are often catalysts for employment in the UK. For the sake of the economy and our youngsters futures we really need those "power people" to look into this problem.

my daughter is really struggling with it at AS and we may get a tutor. She got a D too and finds it harder than chemistry.

even the AQA core science GCSE has so much in it too.

I remember Social Biology being an A level option a while back

Science A levels are hard. They have to include what will be a good grounding for degree level science. DS1 did A level biology. no modules were taken in January so they had the whole year to prepare. I think this is what puts them off. It is a rush doing one term s work and then straight into exams. Social Biology sounds like an interesting course but it does not sound like it is a good foundation for pure science at university.
actually he also found the environmental biology boring and the human part much more interesting. They have to learn to cope with the parts of their subjects which are not as interesting as others. After all whose job is interesting all the time.
If they made science GCSE a bit more difficult there would not be this huge jump.

Unlike Physics and Chemistry A levels, Biology has a large essay question in the exams. This has put off my DS who loves human biology, specially the "yucky,gorey" bits, but he hates to write essays, especially under exam conditions.
Perhaps if the exam format was more like that of Chemistry and Physics, then more people might study it?

Plenty more people studied Biology than Chemistry and Physics in my time, some two decades ago. Then you only had essay questions (for all three sciences) and wet practicals, all under exam conditions, no AS mid-point, no modules, so if you fluffed it after two years, you re-sat everything.

It's exactly like asking, Why does Medicine cover so much when Britain needs more doctors? Because the cost of incompetence is too high to bear in Medicine. But apparently not in Biology A2. Maybe that's why an A level isn't worth much these days?

Frumpy that may depend on the exam board because DD2 certainly has a long essay type question in her upcoming chemistry A2 exam.

If it was up to me I'd scrap jan modules - they take away teaching time and ruin Christmas holidays(!) and that would give kids the time to get to the right level of understanding rather than having to skim over everything superficially.

why two threads on the same topic?

What banana says: if Britain needs biologists, it needs biologists who can actuallly understand biology; not just people who can wave around a piece of paper with biology written on it. And if we made A-levels too easy, all that would happen would be that students would then start university courses and drop out then, which would be expensive and upsetting. My SILs both work at the science school of a university in Sweden, which has far more pupil-friendly and less stringent A-level equivalents: they say the drop-out rate at university level is horrendous.

Imo all schools should tell their pupils to do triple science if there is the remotest possibility they might want to do science A-levels. Dd's school does.

Of course it is easier to get an A in media studies. But it is not easier to get into a reputable university with A-levels in media studies.

Loshad - answer to why two threads on the same topic? I put the topic under one section of MN Education talk and no one made any comments, so I moved it. I'm a bit disappointed that it hasn't taken off as a topic.

Cory at least has an opinion - which I totally disagree with. I would like to see much greater numbers of students taking one subject in science at A2. By all means label it the "easy biology" option give it a different name. Only in the perfect make-believe Britain that doesn't and never will exist will sufficient numbers of our young people be academics who can follow, process and produce work to the current standard demanded at A2, aged only 17 or 18.

Other countries have alternative, practical routes into science and health careers. Even as recently as the 1970s we valued aptitude and understood that many students could become RSNs as adults in their 20s and 30s but not at 17; they started as SENs. All you needed for State Enrolled Nursing was 5 good A-C GCSEs including English and Maths. Attitude and aptitude were assessed by interview.

there are plenty of other routes into science and healthcare careers for the less academic - btec medical science, btec applied science - both at level 3, health and social care As and A2.
But id you want to be an academic, or a medic, or a dentist, or even heaven forbid a teacher, then you need the depth provided by the current system - if you can't cope with As/A2 there is no way university study of the subject will be successsful.
Alemci really have to disagree with the fact there is too much in core science GCSE - it's had so much removed even OFQUAL have finally woken up and smelled the roses and demanded a more rigorous qualification.

I think people have the wrong attitude to biology. They almost view it as a non-science (because to be fair at GCSE it almost is). It is easier than physics and chemistry (I took all 3 plus maths), but for most of the people in my class it was the only science they were taking. Their other subjects being English etc. Therefore the skillls they need to pass exams etc. are very different.

Does Britain need more biologists?