Sir, I protest about the continued negative comments from “educational experts” on the standards in education in schools today (report, Oct 11; letters, Oct 12). Do these individuals consider the effect on the morale of students, endlessly told that standards are lower, marks are worth less and, now, that the science GCSE may not be recognised by universities?

Many young people regard their science lessons as something to be endured, and struggle to see the relevance of aspects, particularly perhaps of physics, to their future lives. The purpose of the Twenty- First Century Science syllabus is to try to kindle the interest of these disaffected pupils in topics that affect their lives now and will do so in the future, showing them how relevant the basic scientific principles are to things that are happening around them.

Those with a true interest in science can go on to specialise at A level and at university but if we concentrate only on them and fail to catch any but the most committed, how can we expect the non-scientific majority to be able to express opinions, or to lead the way in expanding and encouraging its study in the future?

GILLIAN HARCOURT
Oxford

Sir, I feel that the leading academics have forgotten to ask the pupils about their views on the new GCSE course. I found the course both uninteresting and unscientific, as did the majority of my peers. The course left me thoroughly unprepared for my science A levels and, compared with my peers nationally, I found my scientific knowledge wanting.

Since then I have found it necessary to teach myself the old style GCSE syllabus, so that I can sit my BMAT exam (an entrance exam for medicine at Oxbridge).

The new course fails to stretch students and it makes it harder for universities and employers to distinguish between those who are true scientists and those who work hard. If the education authorities consider that by making a subject easier then it will be more interesting for the pupils, then they are severely mistaken. It will only cause the future generation of scientists to switch off and study the arts instead.

HENRY WALTON
henry689@hotmail.com

Sir, I am astonished that anyone could support the new curriculum as proposed for GCSE science. These subject areas are already covered by general studies, current affairs, critical thinking and so on. Whatever a particular school calls it, these subjects encourage students to develop a critical mindset, and to look at current events. Most importantly, they are not science.

Lord Adonis, in his letter (Oct 12), correctly says that the ideal aim is to maintain academic vigour in students, but doesn’t seem to realise that students will not become interested in something if they are not being taught it.

EDWARD MASON
Weston-super-Mare, Somerset

Sir, I am afraid that many appear to have missed the point: unlike politics, in science a thorough understanding of the facts is essential before an opinion can be formed.

PETER HALLS
York

Sir, I am a GCSE student and feel that the new course is fascinating. Learning about modern science and new discoveries and theories has made me realise that there is a whole universe, possibly more, out there that has yet to be discovered.

I have learnt many amazing facts about our universe and its history in the short four weeks back at school, too many to go into now. I have realised how far we have evolved medically, with gene therapy, etc, how we can save and improve lives, but also all the ethical questions and decisions involved.

I feel that I have really thought about all I have been taught so far and I am really enthusiastic about learning more. After class all the students discuss the possibilities still out there and even stay behind to ask questions.

The new course has encouraged me to hope that I can take all three sciences, chemistry, biology and physics, at A level and at university, and many of my friends feel the same.

H. PANAYIOTOU
St Albans

Explore Letters

• Feedback