Today the Royal Society, Blighty's pre-eminent boffinry institution, has issued its "state of the nation" report into science education in the UK – and it doesn't make encouraging reading. According to the report, there are far too few schoolchildren studying the correct combinations of subjects at A-Level in order to become …
The problem is that the market forces for a degree subject do not relate to the market forces for graduates of those degrees. This is due to the lie that is being perpetuated that all degrees are of equal value and that they are a passport to success.
This results in a demand for graduates in Science, Technology and Engineering and a surplus of Humanities graduates, meaning that aggregate statistics on graduate employment are low.
Fees != Standards
Just because the fees are lower does not mean that the entry criteria should be reduced and so I can not see why there would be a correlation between fees and number of dropouts
I took Psychology, Sociology and English Lit. at A-Level and went on to drop out of a Sociology degree half-way through my first year. The whole time my grades were awful.
Now I'm achieving high first-class grades on a CS degree. I apologise to the Royal Society if I wasn't mature enough at 16 to know EXACTLY what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. I guess I'll just quit now and get a job at Macdonalds.
It's people like you wot gets all the jobs these days.
There was I thinking of doing bit of shelf-filling and I'm under-qualified (not having any degree, A level or O level, that is).
At least under 'Big Society' I'll have the chance to be chained up as part of a crew doing litter picking on the local roads where the expensive houses are.
Won't see you at McD's though -- I've not been in one of them for many, many years.
Unless they've changed things recently, kids with highers at scottish unis were expected to do an extra year before the course really got going. So a 3 year course would be a 4 year course.
I went from the England with a-levels to Scotland for a degree and found the first year was about half n half "easy" and "new".
I think degrees are too narrow focussed myself. I found after 2 years of studying electronics to what seemed to be pointless levels of detail, I just wanted to do something different.
I don't work in electronics now, but I can't imagine being able to work out the impedance of a cable from first principles AND how electrons flow through a transistor junction is going to be useful to most people. You might need to know the nitty gritty of some of the areas, where your work is focussed, but not all of it.
I'd suggest more vocational A-levels followed by something like an apprenticeship program in whatever the company want you to do, nationally recognised etc... so you could move jobs and keep your course going. AND continue that through life.
Unlike most companies I work for where you keep getting thrown new technologies and expected to figure it out because it's sort of similar to the old one you were working on. Actually have some sensible budget allocated for training. (One UK wide banking institution allocated about £500 per employee per year and then threw VMware at the Windows admin team. No surprise it was a bit of mess)
I couldn't figure out the difference. I went to a Scottish school, and then Edinburgh University. By 5th year of school, I had a Higher in maths. As part of 6th year, I was able to do what's called CSYS (Cert of Sixth Year Studies) in maths as well.
When I got to university for a BSc in maths, the first year was spent covering what I'd covered a CSYS, so was an absolute doddle. By contrast, my English counterparts had barely touched any of the stuff I'd already done, and had a relatively hard year.
I could never reconcile the differences though. In hindsight I could probably have started in 2nd year, and completed a Scottish degree in 3 years, whereas the English students would take 4.
".....I found after 2 years of studying electronics to what seemed to be pointless levels of detail...." I learnt more of real practical value in the first six months in the industry than I learnt in the whole four years of my degree. But the HR people that interviewed me way back then had exactly the same attitude as they do now - "You need a piece of paper in a narrow range of degree subjects to prove that you are capable of the mental gymnastics required for this role."
Back in my day, about 50% of all graduates ended up as accountants, simply because there was demand from accountancy companies. I see many science grads today stumbling around the job market because they are spot-on science geniuses, but their skills are not directly applicable to many of the jobs actually out there. I'm not sure just churning out more science grads is the answer unless we can tie it in more with what the economy needs, and that will always be hard seeing as how your choice of degree has to be made whilst guessing at what the job market will need in three or four years time. Can't we start listening more to industry people rather than those living in ivory towers in unis and associated societies?
4 year degrees
The Scottish 4 year degree isn't because of an insufficiency in secondary school, it's because 3 years just isn't long enough for a degree. In fact, most students in Europe spend 5 years at uni, to get an undergraduate masters.
The Scottish higher/sixth year system is more flexible than the English A-levels.
In my day, you would typically do 5 Highers in fifth year (normally Maths and English with 3 free choices) and then in sixth year do 3 subjects at CSYS, with possibly a 6th Higher in addition to the CSYS. Nowadays, CSYS has been replaced with Advanced Higher, but I believe the pattern is broadly similar.
In this way, the Scottish system introduces specialisation by degrees, leaving to a broader academic foundation and reducing the pigeon-holing of teenagers when they're really still too young to know what they really want to do.
Many uni courses start with the assumption of study to highers only, but in specific areas may assume CSYS/Advanced Higher knowledge. On the whole it's a balanced system, but you can't please all the people all the time, so there has to be some retreading of ground in any course.
"I went from the England with a-levels to Scotland for a degree and found the first year was about half n half "easy" and "new". I think degrees are too narrow focussed myself."
The whole point of the 'easy' first year in Scottish universities is to allow you to take a breadth of subjects so that your degree *isn't* too narrowly focused. In the first and second years of my computing degree I studied geology, astrophysics and history and philosophy of science (a history course, not a science course). I hadn't done any of these before, and they're 'easy' precisely so that people studying other subjects can achieve a breadth of education.
If you have good enough Advanced Highers (roughly equivalent to a full-term A-level or the old CSYS that they replaced), you can skip the first year entirely. Or if you have good Highers you can skip your high school 6th year and go straight into uni (something I sometimes wish I'd done). In these situations the Scottish degree is essentially the same length as an English one.
I think you'll find that learning how to calculate impedance from 1st principles - or understanding electron flow through a PN junction wasn't ONLY about learning the 'hows of impedance or electron flow;' it was aimed at teaching you how to learn; how to get back to 1st principles; how to understand a problem; how to progress in the right direction (towards the solution); how to work with discipline and stricture; how to be able to do the same analysis and get the right answer - even though all the parameters 'appear' to be different. And may be most importantly; you should have learnt not to clutter your brain with useless facts - that's what the internet/reference book is for.
You're whining like some wannabe artist demanding they don't need to learn how to paint; as that's all so old fashioned.
If you don't understand the basics; if you don't know how to learn' if you don't know how to apply that knowledge - well you are worse than a banker.
"I'm not sure just churning out more science grads is the answer unless we can tie it in more with what the economy needs, and that will always be hard seeing as how your choice of degree has to be made whilst guessing at what the job market will need in three or four years time. "
But the efficient market always provides, doesn't it? Except when it's busy off-shoring, to society's detriment. I bet a little bit of left-wing protectionism seems appealing right about now.
"Can't we start listening more to industry people rather than those living in ivory towers in unis and associated societies?"
Industry people are telling me to get a degree in programming VB Macros. Let's not listen to them too much, eh?
Twas ever thus
I left school back in the early 90's, and had done the old physics O grade and the the old higher. I noticed immediately when I went into the lab that they were teaching specific heat and other stuff I had covered at 15.
A quick chat with the lecturer and a few testing questions later I got a pass and told to come back in a few weks.
tax the bullshit subjects
like 'breakfast; said earlier , the way to get more proper graduates , i.e. science , is to make the courses cheap if not free , and if they cant afford that put the bill onto all the bulshit subjects , especially Film Studies
this might not be the best incentive
This might not work out quite as you expect if it results in a large number of unsuitable candidates selecting science and engineering subjects simply because they are cheap.
I can well remember that drop out rate on MEng in Electronic Engineering I did at a Russell-group red-brick university in the mid 90's: We started with about 150 students in the first year, dropping to probably under half of this by the 3rd year. By the fourth year, there were 13 of us staying on for the MEng.
My university, no doubt like many others, was very conscious that too many of their students were coming from independent schools.
Whilst the usual way onto an Engineering course was Maths and Physics A-levels, and more often than not another science, they also offered places to candidates from vocational backgrounds - who often a very light on formal mathematics education.
Invariably, these students found 1st year Engineering Maths very hard (those of us who did A-Levels found the first semester a rehash of stuff we'd already done and found it a very easy ride). A huge number of those who failed the year did so because of this course. And without it, they were truly stuffed with all of the other modules as well, which relied heavily on it.
Unless we want to stuff the first years of our science and engineering degrees with students who are likely to fail, education before university is a really big deal.
cheap science courses
In which case you fine Unis which can't be bothered to select properly. The alternative is to have a 'science foundation' course for those who need bringing up to speed.
back in the 70's we were told - very proudly - that they (assorted Unis offering Engineering) expected (aimed !) to wash out at least 1/3 rd of the students in the 1st year - and they would be concerned if they washed out 2/3rds - they'd just make the selection harder
However they did reckon that if you got through the 1st year you should be able to finish the course - 'course you may only get a 3/3
pre-requisites for the degree
I'm going to support Mark Olleson's post fully on the issue of having a good education prior to University. Much of my experience reflects Mark's, I too went to a Russel Group university to study Electronic Engineering, (perhaps even the same one? Who knows?).
I knew HND students that had joined the BEng degree in Electronic Engineering that seriously struggled with the maths in the first year and almost quit. For us that had undertaken A level maths, our experience reflects Marks, that some of the first year topics in Maths were refreshers of our A level.
Our second year consisted of something like 10 different subjects of which 8 contained a lot of maths. And boy, did it get difficult. I still recall discussing with friends that we thought the transition from O levels to A levels was difficult, but the transistion from A level to degree level was far, far harder.
We worked our nuts off at University, it was tough, the work load was very high and the subject matter, the concepts, the maths, difficult, and I think it would have been hard pressed for any university to have worked us harder.
I believe now that since then, that degrees have been extended from 3 to 4 years, presumably to cope with the lower quality of students going into the Uni as a result of all the tinkering, messing up of the GCSE's and A levels by the Labour government.
Those input entry standards to Universty Engineering courses have to be maintained and the maths is ALWAYS a pre-requsite.
I work in information technology, I don't have a degree in Computer Science ( I did A level computer science and found it incredibly easy) and I can blow the arse of any CS grad.
I had a lodger in my house at a highly reputable Uni, styudying Computer Science, could he design a computer with the knowledge they taught him? Not a cats chance in hell.
Maths is the key to understanding almost everything. Key to understanding the real world, how things change, and move - dynamic systems. Something CS grads are not taught.
"Firstly, there should be an attempt to rein in the vast and continually burgeoning range of bullshit A-Levels which are easy and fun to do but no use whatever – and which tempt kids away from the true path."
But will it happen?
And, Tom15, I'm afraid that General Studies is not only still there, it's compulsory at many schools even though few universities will touch it.
General Studies is OK
My school had mandatory General Studies - and this was, IMO, a good thing. It exposed science kids to the arts, and art kids to the sciences, and generally helped with producing more rounded students.
And with only an 90 mins of lessons per week it still allowed me to take 4 proper subjects and go on to do mech engineering at a proper uni.
(and that was 20 years ago, when A-levels were actually testing, not like today mind you, write your name on the bloody paper and they give you a pass, grumble, grumble, etc, etc....)
My school had mandatory General Studies too (nearly 20 years back). Everyone had to endure the lessons except the Further Maths group as the two clashed in the timetable. The idea of exposing science kids to arts and arts kids to science is a nice idea in theory but we couldn't help but notice that all the Further Maths group got A in General Studies and very few of the rest did.
Probably a reflection of the elite nature of further mathematicians than the quality of the teaching. (I nearly wrote 1337 there, but realised that as I'm touching 40 that would make me a bit of a twat).
From memory the exam wasn't really 'teachable' other than if you read the Sunday newspapers cover to cover and watched a reasonable number of documentaries on the telly (in those bleak www-free days).
@Marky W - General Studies
"My school had mandatory General Studies - and this was, IMO, a good thing. It exposed science kids to the arts, and art kids to the sciences, and generally helped with producing more rounded students."
Utter crap. What the hell is a 'more rounded student' and how does it actually help them?
I didn't do General Studies, I had enough on my plate doing the other A levels.
And I would have greatly resented my school forcing me to do a subject which I felt was a) completely useless, b) wasn't going to help me get into University to study my chosen subject c) would have taken my time away from the studies required for my chosen A levels.
And looking back all those years, do I feel as if I have lost something because I didn't do General Studies? No, not in the slightest.
As an adult, after I finished University, I have a lot more time, and I can choose what I want to do with that time, and if I choose to go looking at the arts, then that's my choice and I have the time to do it. Being forced to do General Studies against my wishes doesn't help me!
A levels are about studying the subjects to sufficient depth to be able to get into University and then continue those studies on. Who gives a monkey's about General Studies A level if the course of study at Uni does not require it? !!
I don't believe for one second that an A level in General Studies and knowing about some painters or composers would have helped me one tiny bit in my engineering degree.
I know what would have helped me, an A level in Further Maths!!
Change the entry requirements
A-Level in "Physical Sciences"
A-Level in "Biological Sciences"
"Evidently the employment situation for sci/tech grads isn't that desperate, though, or more of them would be willing to become teachers."
Nothing and I mean NOTHING could tempt me to become a Teacher. Hat off to anyone who is desperate enough.
Currently the job of teaching is extremely unattractive.
What with not that great pay, ridiculous levels of paperwork, job risks that include being sued for everything and anything that you may or may not have done, only the very dedicated stick to it. Also having known a fair number of teachers the office politics are extreme and can damage your mental health.
Teaching is fine
Childminding aggressive brats and fighting off their low life parents, on the other hand, is a very challenging skill indeed and I know I lack it.
@Peter 82: I couldn't agree more! I was on a degree to become an IT teacher because I do love the teaching profession, but I worked out very fast that all the additional stuff that gets dumped on teachers by the ever-changing mind of whichever "flavour of the month" educational policy is in with the Gubbermint would drive me bat-shit crazy if I had to do it for work every day.
I became a technician instead. You can still get involved in the teaching side of things but it's the poor bastards who are classed as actual "teachers" that have to do the paperwork. I have a lot of friends in the teaching profession and I have nothing but awesome respect for their patience and the job they do.
Not the low life
The low life parents are usually O.K.
The ones with a bit of an educaton are the real troublemakers.
Although many may not agree, I believe the biggest problem with teaching is the pay structure (block pay bargaining and unionism). I know that bonuses were given in the past, for instance, to attract males to early school teaching and to attract maths teachers to take them above the normal pay-scale but that's not enough.
We have to face facts in that, although many do the job for the love of it (I myself could never entertain the thought) it is still cold hard currency that keeps the roof above your head. I see no reason why a brilliant maths teacher (or any other subject) should live a shit life because they teach. I know there are those that state "if you want better pay then work in private industry" - I used to be one before I had kids - but that ignores the fact that you will therefore be sentencing kids to either a shit education or a costly one and society will reap the outcome of this. Good teachers and those in much needed areas should be separated from the abhorrent bullshit that is the "you've been teaching for 8 years so you're at this level" crap that goes on.
Why should someone who may be crap earn more just because there's a couple more years on the dial? Can't see it happening though.
All we need, more 'jack of all science' type folk who are dabbling a toe in the water. Surely the folk you need in science don't need convincing to work at the interesting subjects, rather than endure the boring easier ones ?
What is really needed
is more good maths and science teachers at all levels. As far as I can see it, the only way to achieve this would be with financial incentives. The question is, where would the additional cash come from. When the economy was booming, it seems we pissed all of the cash up the wall rather than investing in the technological future of the nation, now it is too late.
The only alternative I can see is for those companies who benefit from high quality maths/sci graduates to pump money back into the education system, possibly through some sort of charitable fund, or for punitive levels of taxation to get a pay-off in ten years time, which is never going to happen.
Big biotech like GSK benefit enormously from such graduates, yet when I graduated from a chemistry degree some 10+ years ago, the starting salary for graduates working 10hr days in the lab was less than £20k, whereas with a physical sciences degree, it was possible to go and become an accountant or similar and earn £30k for shorter hours. I took the third path, and through a lot of hard work retrained as a software developer, I'm noty sure this option would be open to too many others.
All in all, then, the education system, particularly surrounding science and maths, in this country, is royally screwed. I guess it's time for me to go and learn Mandarin Chinese. Ni Hao.
I think there already are financial incentives
I believe there already are financial incentives for sci / maths teachers..
a friend of mine quit his IT career to retrain as a maths teacher and got his PGCE paid for by the govt. also I think the starting salaries are around 4 or 5k more than for those on other subjects.. even with that extra cash though you're still much worse off than working in industry, and horrendously so compared to the finance sector..
as it is teaching is a profession for the few graduates who actually have a passion for the subject and enjoy teaching (my friend) and (mostly) all the people that got a 3rd and couldn't get a job using their degree in the private sector. Those that can't, teach.. as the advert really should have gone..
as someone who studied maths but now earns a good but extremely boring living as an excel monkey in finance and barely uses the maths skills I spent 4 years studying to masters level I would be tempted to go into teaching.. unfortunately I know it would involve ungrateful brats, ridiculous hours and paperwork and an almost 66% cut in my salary.. No thanks.. The only thing that attracts me is the fact that it is a very transferrable skill in demand almost everywhere so would enable me to earn a living somewhere that wasn't a ridiculously huge city
God, that's depressing.
Time to start saving for a private school.
There is a lot of hate for General Studies, but a study found that results in General Studies were a better predictor of degree results than any other A level.
General Studies was a soft option because you didn't have to work hard for it but it didn't, like most A levels, reward rote learning.
However, I am talking about 20 years ago. Maybe everybody gets an A* now.
how depressing to realise I did it 40 years ago
even then the arrogance of the humanities - we (science geeks) had to do general Studies - to 'teach' us arts & current affairs - did this mean the humanities & art types did 'general science' and learnt to change a fuse & understand how science works - HA !
still the same today - the liberal elite wallow in their ignorance & believe they must make sure we poor techy types 'understand' art and current affairs - its not even the blind leading the blind - most of them know less then most techy types ... (ok I'm biased; but at least I know it ...)
I don't know where these magical graduates are all hiding, because we can't recruit them for love nor money.
For a single Mech Eng job we'll get 40+ applicants from countries where they require sponsoring and usually 2-3 applicants from the UK. Of these 3 UK Engineers, one won't even have a mecheng degree, one will have a Desmond degree from an unknown university and the last might be a reasonable graduate.
This leaves you hoping that the one graduate that you managed to get to interview can pass the engineering test, do well at interview and generally fit in at the company.
same with us
we have a dev job going in our lab, so far loadsssssssss of appliaction form requests from non EU nationals, they won't get the job as they haven't got a work permit, total waste of time for our HR department
Things sure have changed in the last thirty plus years ...
I have A levels in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Pure & Applied Maths, English, Economics, Latin, French, Religious Studies and History.
Yes, that's 11 A levels ... and I'm a bloody Yank.
The Nintendo Generation needs to step away from the console and learn what life is all about ...
An A level here - or the ones years ago when I did mine - took 2 years of studying and 3 could be done in a year. That was as a full time student.
So 11 A levels, at 3 every 2 years, equates to 6 years of continuous full time studying.
You're a liar or you've devoted a hell of a lot of time in your evenings and weekends in pursuit of a useless ideal. If you don't have a degree then you'd been far better off spending that time studying for one. If you do have a degree than that's a further 3 to 4 years of full time study, which means you've spent far too much time in education.
I can think of far better things to do with my time than simply studying for A level after A level which don't benefit you finanically.
2 years of full time studying/3 in a year
Well, three A levels took two years of *school hours* studying at 6th form levels of effort. I' m not sure that's exactly the same thing as two years of full time study, but I do wonder if the OP has got his A levels and O levels confused.
Sorry to dissapoint you mate but that's only nine A-Levels, Religious Studies and Latin don't count.
Wow, things have changed.
A year and a half ago I took mine.
The standard process is 4 AS Levels (1st Year), then dropping one subject to take 3 A2 Levels (2nd Year).
My college did offer the option to take 5 AS Levels if you had enough GCSE's. And 4 A2 Levels if you got a C or higher in every AS level you wanted to continue. I know of no-one who took 5 A2 Levels.
I was young, a Californian in Yorkshire, somewhat introverted, and didn't date much ... I did 'em in two years. My semi-eidetic memory probably helped ;-)
Financially, the knowledge-base I received with that basic, low-level of education has benefited me immensely over the last third+ of a century ... and yes, I have degrees. Several, in fact.
I forgot my civil engineering Masters in that lot ... Mea culpa.
Nope. I also hold 13 O levels ... Add Geography & Art to the above list ;-)
Maybe not. But they've been useful over the years, nonetheless ;-)
But her sister is a teacher and wants to get out because she says the Gov't -required paperwork has taken over her life and sapped her love of teaching.
Bingo! My parents were both teachers, one in secondary and the other in FE - both retired several years ago and they both complained about the amount of paperwork, the government changing the curriculum every couple of years, OFSTED inspections and all the other periphery shite that got in the way of actually teaching. OK, everyone complains about the periphery work they have to deal with (like generating reports for managers) but it just seems that in teaching it's far more excessive than most other jobs.
Not to mention the fact, of course, that with the media-fuelled, Paedo-hunter General mentality in the populace at large, any man wanting to work with children these days needs his head checking (almost literally). Mind, I tend to think that anyone who wants to work with the vile little scrotes should probably seek psychiatric help.
Yes - I did both Maths and Physics at A-Level - no I didn't do them beyond that level because they were so staggeringly dull in the second year ... 2nd year of Maths was almost entirely statistics which completely killed the subject for me.
Hmm. I did a double-award "science" GCSE (in 1992), and though it was moaned about at the time (particularly by my be-BSc'd parents), it was rather interesting. Certainly I got to study some of the squidgy stamp-collecting* bits.
And it didn't seem to do me that much harm - A levels in Maths, Further Maths, Physics & Music (oh, and General Studies), MPhys in Physics, PhD in surface physics.
Besides, I'm not sure you can complain (in the abstract, anyway) about a broad-based "science" GCSE whilst simultaneously applauding the call for a, erm, broad-based replacement for A levels in which science is supposed to feature more heavily.
* see Rutherford
Not gonna happen
Not in this country anyway.
1) You have to change the attitude of the senior / head teachers in the junior / senior schools away from the 'fluffy' ideas about the kids finding their own way through 'the learning journey' (tm). You have to convince these people that their job is to actually _TEACH_ the kids in their care.
2) You have to remove disruptive influences, including (or especially) disruptive students, from the classroom. How can a class of 30 to 60 learn anything when one or two of their number is running round being a total arsehole?
3) You have to get rid of the useless teachers. Now this is never ever going to happen. Once someone figures out how to properly evaluate a teachers performance, the whole teaching profession will shit themselves.
4) You have to convince the kids with the ability to attain these qualifications that they should actually _WORK_ to get the quals. Now that is going to be difficult when the kids see football or big tits, and the willingness to expose them, as their best gateway to fame and fortune.
5) You have to convince the hordes of middle class parents (who believe that their kids degree in media studies has equal worth as a degree in maths, science or engineering) that they are twats.
6) You have to convince the universities and HEIs (doesn't that give you a warm and cuddly feeling if 'insidership'?) that this country only needs about 1% of the media studies graduates that they currently churn out. And that most of these 'universities' are little but jumped up red brick colleges and they should go back to what they used to do so well. Teach technical subjects for those without the real ability for the 'pure' subjects.
7) And you have to convince the government, and those hordes of middle class parents whose kids were given^W^W obtained a media studies degree, that it is worthwhile for this country to pay for the harder, more salable courses.
There are countries who realise that the only way that you can give everybody an equal educational qualification, is to give everyone the lowest grade possible. Some people are brighter, more academically able than others. These people, the brightest of our children, need to be nurtured and helped to fulfill their potential. It means streaming kids into ability groups, it means harder work for the teachers of the higher groups. It means getting the very brightest kids into special schools so that they can be taught by the best teachers. It also means that the less able kids are grouped too. They should be helped to develop their potential just as hard as the brighter kids, but their needs will be different. And so on down the ability range until the very least able are helped in the ways that they need.
None of these thoughts are actually radical, nor are they 'consigning the less able to the rubbish heap'. If these brighter kids are from middle class or, heaven forbid, upper class families, perhaps we should be looking at what they are doing right and what the others aren't doing.
"... it is often difficult to persuade teenagers that they should do so much more work than their idle chums taking English, Geography or whatever."
Eh? I took MCP and Geography as a 4th subject* and I can assure you that MCP was a doss compared to Geography. In Geography you have to write essays and stuff. Do not confuse difficulty of understanding with difficulty of labor.
* General Knowledge, er, Studies as a an additional league table booster.
Career potential is a big problem
The question everyone will be asking as they choose subjects is, "What career can I build on these subjects?". Aside from the fact that any kind of career is looking shaky these days, it's difficult to see where you can apply skills based on maths and sciences. It's becoming harder and harder to justify doing any research or development in the UK when it is so much cheaper to move it somewhere else (or so the thinking goes - I see it as terribly expensive in the long term). Everyone is fixated with management, marketing, and selling in general, but not it's a deadly spiral that will leave us bereft of the skills to make any further advances. Every conceivable change to schools and teaching won't make any difference if society in general looks on these subjects as a dead-end.
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Nine-year-old Opportunity Mars rover sets NASA distance record
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE