The worrying decline of science education
“When the end of the mining boom comes, where will Australia be?” asked Suzanne Cory, the president of the Australian Academy of Science, in a National Press Club address today slamming Australia’s lack of investment in science education.
Cory, an internationally renowned biologist, said Australia had been “slipping in its duty to inspire our children,” due to poor science education that leaves children disenchanted. Australian children are performing worse in science than ever before and the number of students studying science continues to decline.
Ten years ago 23% of year 12 students studied chemistry. Now it’s just 18%. Physics has fallen from 21% to 14% in the last decade.
Maths, a critical component in studying science, looks even more troubled, with early secondary mathematical literacy scores significantly declining over the last ten years.
Cory spoke of a strong history of Australian scientific endeavours — particularly in relation to the economic values of such discoveries — including the development of WiFi by CSIRO scientist John O’Sullivan, the bionic ear invention by Graeme Clark and Ian Frazer’s cervical vaccine.
Cory said while research projects of these scale took years, they were critical to the betterment of Australian society. “Science is often a long-term investment. But it is an investment that can pay off in spades,” argued Cory.
“To be quite frank, we need much greater investment in science in this country, by government — both State and Federal — and by business.”
The recent resources boom is a critical example of science investment paying off economically, with Cory noting that “We would not have had any of our mining booms if our geology had not mapped by government Geological Surveys, at great public expense, starting in 1850.”
While the current government has invested heavily in research and development (R&D), Australia still spends far less of its Gross Domestic Product on R&D and science education than most other advanced economies.
Cory spoke of a recent survey conducted by Science and Technology Australia and the Academy of Science, which showed the 80% of respondents agreed that “science education is absolutely essential or very important to the national economy.”
However the research also “revealed some alarming holes in the basic science understanding of the average Australian,” said Cory. The results found that three in ten Australians surveyed believe humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs. More than one-third of Australians do not think evolution is still occurring.
“So — it appears we understand that science education is important to society and to the national economy. But, as a nation, many of us do not understand even the most basic science,” Cory told the Press Club.
The Australian Academy of Science, modelled after the UK’s Royal Society, is a fellowship made up of over 400 of the nation’s top scientists. Its aim is to promote excellence in Australian science. It has recently run two different — and successful — science education programs for primary and secondary schools. Cory says the Academy was ” devastated” to learn earlier this year that the federal government decided to withdraw its support for the programs.
Cory called for further investment in teachers and science curriculum. “This is a responsibility for both the Commonwealth and the States, who must work together rather than reverting to the blame game,” she said.
Cory’s personal research has focused on the fields of immunology and cancer. She’s been named a Knight of the Legion of Honour and the Suzanne Cory High School, a selective government school for ages 9-12 in Melbourne’s West, opened this year.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Whilst a generalised science education is a necessary thing, why would anyone in this day and age specialise in science? What with poor wages, short-term contracts, competition for a limited number of positions, the undignified and desperate scrabble for grants every year, the rejection of the results by the public, and a lack of respect compared to, for instance, medics – specialising in well-paid ‘soft subjects’ seems an awfully better choice.
And if noones studying it, it’ll soon fall off the curriculum.
We are witnessing a fast-growing science gap – the demands of our increasingly technological (science and maths-based) world and brewing environmental problems mean that we’re heading in exactly the wrong direction on science and maths education. Dumbing down when we badly need to be smartening up. On top of the falling numbers, many science graduates are alarmingly under-educated. The most cost-effective solution is to invest in science-maths education now, no delays. It should be a serious national priority. Failure will be costly and dangerous in the long term.
I would like to know the name and a contact for the researcher to whom Suzanne Cory referred in relation to elevated white blood cell research. Is this info available?
Marls
My most recent stint at Uni involved a science degree. It was overall a dismal and stultifying experience.
Asperger’s central mate. Teachers who literally could not make eye contact with students, for whom lecturing was a deeply traumatic and detested task which got in the way of their research interests. For whom any genuione question was a personal attack and who saw their role as disciplinarians rather than mentors.
Universities reward researchers and the grants and prestige they pull in. They dismiss teaching as a necessary evil. Not just in science but more generally.
It will not solve the yawning gap identified above by packing more “good scientists” into teaching positions. I’d suggest that they are mutually exclusive categories of skill.
What is actually required is science communicators – spreaders of enthusiasm in our schools in particular. In fact I reckon that is all we ever learn from our teachers – enthusiasm – or the lack of it.
My recent experiences turned my initial enthusiasm to dust in my mouth – as it did with the great majority of my fellow students. None went on to continue in the field. Not one.
Nothing is more contagious than a lack of enthusiasm and disinterest.
There are a number of contributing factors to this, IMO. Firstly, when I did my HSC (1984) everyone had to study English, Maths and at least one Science subject to matriculate. Nowadays they don’t even have to do Maths in year 11 & 12. I disliked science but studied Biology, as did all the other kids who weren’t into Physics and Chem. Those that hated Maths studied Maths in Society. I still think that we were better off learning those subjects anyway, even though we didn’t like them. At least by studying Biology we knew about reproduction, evolution etc. And by doing Maths in society there was a basis for understanding the role of maths in everyday life (like household budgets, interest rates). My sister finished her science degree after 6 years and a few left turns. Turns out she was qualified to become a research assistant. No wonder she went back to uni and got her dip ed. Now she’s a science teacher and struggling to fill her students with enthusiasm. I’d say she counts as a communicator, Peter O. But she’s 40, a single mum with 2 primary school aged kids. The position suits her lifestyle. But a young 20 something faced with a choice like that? No wonder they choose finance! Make the rewards more substantial, with a better career path and you might find that more young people are interested in the field. Those who aren’t necessarily on the high functioning end of the autistic spectrum, that is.
Peter Ormonde’s experience was also sim. to mine when I first set foot in a University in the UK. In organic chemistry, lecture one, day one:
“Good morning” said the lecturer and turned to the board and wrote “alkanes” he stayed at the board writing and talking as if self obsessed with his mastery. He walked out about an hour later without looking at us very much. I suppose 200 faces was too daunting?
Forty years later, I quizzed a first year student at the University of WA about organic chemistry. The script was still in use, word for word.
I persisted. A PhD later and in business I am still wondering how to fix things.
I feel I am well qualified to respond to this having a PhD in Science and having worked as a scientist in public, governmental and private organisations. Currently I am in a permanent business development role in governmental organisation, using an MBA which I gained after becoming frustrated with short term contracts in Science (3 year grant cycles). Right now labourers/tradies working for miners can make more money than most people with a PhD in science. I am currently paid at around a professorial equivalent, yet would be regarded as too young to assume such a position at a University. It took 8 1/2 years post Yr12 to complete my PhD during that time I received no super, mininmal financial recompense and a substantial HECS debt putting me well behind the eight ball. A scientific career is rarely financially rewarding and instead I would recommend a career in computing, finance, law or gain a trade. All of my friends who gained PhD at the same time are no longer working at the coalface, in reasearch or teaching , but instead most have seen better career opportunities in the public service. The fact that Peter Doherty’s position was not renewed at the institute were he did his Nobel prize winning work says everything about career opportunities for scientists.
It’s not just the pure sciences which have been scaled back, starved of funds or exterminated outright in universities, but the humanities and social sciences as well. Schools are presumably reacting to the conversion of tertiary education to suit the demands of corporatism. Not much point encouraging school students to do physics or history or sociology if the “universities” do little except service corporations and the corporate state.
“To be quite frank, we need much greater investment in science in this country, by government — both State and Federal — and by business.”
I can’t speak as a scientist, because I’m not. I have worked overseas though, as a designer. Working in manufacturing and automotive engineering I’ve designed along side chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, materials engineers and aeronautical engineers. Some with doctorates, some without. Perhaps they don’t fall into the category of scientist but you’ll see where I’m going. Some do pure research and development others are at the coalface of production engineering. The observation I made was that many of these talented people were Australians. There is no market for highly skilled professionals in Australia so they travel to Europe or America where hey will be able to practice their skills, gain experience and be paid a level of income befitting their status.
A competent qualified finite element analysis engineer (Aeronautical structures) in Germany can expect around $120 or more per hour. (roughly $215,000 pear contract year). Better than the proverbial kick in the head. I know if I had devoted 6 to 8 years of my life to gaining a qualification I would want to make my money back asap.
Archer, I CAN speak as a scientist. PhD from UWA. The prospect of doing a PhD nowadays is the sheer cost. Why would I saddle myself with a HECS debt of some magnitude when there is little prospect of work afterwards?
As an employer of scientists, I HAVE to look overseas to get talent and the only reason some of them come here is lifestyle.
What can be done? Make the place investor friendly.
Bill Parker @10
Hello Bill,
“As an employer of scientists, I HAVE to look overseas to get talent and the only reason some of them come here is lifestyle.
What can be done? Make the place investor friendly.”
That’s true. The same goes for engineering professionals, although now that the Australian dollar is so strong the attraction is a little more than just lifestyle. Perhaps people in my line of work get paid more than researchers. However there will always be the mindset that government should not “pick winners” and companies, be they research or engineering, should be driven by the funding of private investors, not subsidies. That leaves visionary tax reforms. Do we have any visionaries in the government?
You have more experience than me, but that’s my two cent worth.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.