Does Our P.M. work for middle Man?

Well when was the Chancellor he has hit pockets of all middle class family
He has raised a lot of tax, reduced allowances, caused a lot of problems with middle class pensions

He was in the cabinet when he supported resolution to fight war with Iraq on very flimsy grounds when majority of the world was against

The Statistics for his health service has to be challenged. He talks about increase of operations. What has happened is that he counts number of procedures. One person can have 3 procedures at one time. So there are three operations. That cannot be right.
Money has been spent unwisely and has caused problems both in the hospitals and with the G.P’s
He talks about education and how important it is. He has lowered the standards. Whilst there are more graduates the standards are poor.
Crime is rife. The Crime figures like all the Labour statistics do not add up. Average person is reluctant to go out at night on his or her own, in any city

Its about time that people realise that what the Government says is not true and cannot be relied upon

V.C.Dalal
Birmingham

Vinod Dalal, Sutton Coldfield, U.K.

This idea just shows how disconnected exam boards are with the "real world". This clear dumbing down just makes life more difficult for students in the long term. The suggestion of easier exams and the fact that so many students earn top grades were enough to contribute to the introduction of additional entrance exams for subjects such as veterinary science, dentistry or law. This creates yet more pressure on students who have worked hard throughout their GCSEs and A-levels.

If there are concerns that exams are too difficult for some students then the solution is to look at the quality of support and teaching, not making exams easier. Which, in the long term, just adds to the pressure on students, like myself, whose hardwork throughout their educational careers is too often decried as being the product of a devalued system.

Michael Etienne, Luton,

The article concerning the Catholic view of the Bible that says that the church says that the Bible description of how Eve was created is not true and that the virgin birth is true, begs the question: "On what basis does the church declared a thing true or untrue?"
Neither one of these assertions is scientifically or logically proven or disproven.

ED WEST, Redding, CA

Where is the fairness in education? If science is to become easier, then a now B will be an A in future examinations, how is this fair on the students who have studied and tried so hard to get the higher grades. The idea of being intelligent will be under-mined by this being implemented. This means we'll have mediocre students with higher grades than they deserve.

Jennie, Northampton, UK

I just did my GCSES, while i worked hard for my grades which were all A*S and As I think they should be made harder not easier. When you go on to A level education, you realise how easy they really are! Multiple choice answers is ridiculous, I hope when I'm applying for jobs and universities ect and in competition with the year below me they take into account how easy GCSE'S are for the younger years! Science doesnt need to be made easier at all, i'm not einstein, and managed to go from CC in my mock to AA with some concentrated revision!

Talor Elliott, Bristol,

If this paper is considered too difficult, I suggest that we save students time and trouble (and taxpayers money) by simply giving everyone an 'A' grade.

This would also enable NuLabour to claim yet another improvement in the pass rate - admittedly exactly HOW they will mange to claim 105% next year does remain a bit of a problem!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

Clearly Dr Phil Barber can't recognise the difference between a discussion on a Physics paper and one on cancer.

I expect he's a BSc (Physics). D'oh!

Allan, Cowling, UK

Interesting article by Magnus Linklater 'Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion' last week.
I'm reading Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' so all views are of interest. Like Magnus I think there is shrill language at times. I go to all my friend's funerals, whatever their religion, and church services have moved with the times--there is participation from family and friends and reference to the person's life. There are many beautiful hymns and words (eg "when the shadows lengthen, the busy world is hushed, the fever of work is over and our work is done") that can stir even atheists.

Magnus mentions Toynbee's reaction to bishops in the HOL and their campaigns in aspects of life. He does not mention End of Life Choices--where some 80% of the Public agree with automomy in untreatable illnesses, with sensible safeguards--yet the HOL did not pass the Joffe Bill.
Our schools should have an education in the wide range of faiths along with ethics and moral choices

Eleanor Murray, Nairn, Moray, Scotland

ha ha! I did that test a few months ago and got full marks. Having read this article it doesn't seem like such an achievement anymore.

Richard, Kent, UK

I agree with others that question 1 is wrong. There's just as much reason to think that D is the orbit of a moon as C. And that's if you ignore the completely nonsensical nature of the diagram.

Daniel Lucraft, London,

The Jane Tomlinson story, inspirational as it is, holds important lessons for health-care professionals: first, survival predictions are inherently unreliable and should be used, if at all, with great caution; second, the word 'terminal' means 'about to die', and has nothing whatever to do with diagnosis. It is frequently confused, by doctors, with 'incurable' and is often misused in this way when counselling cancer patients who may be perfcectly fit and active at the time of diagnosis. This inappropriate labelling induces a mood of unnecessary pessimism in both doctor and patient, with an adverse effect on outcome, often aggravated by the excessive use of powerful pain-relievers and sedatives. Fortunately, Jane refused to be labelled in this way and proved herself to be, though ultimately 'incurable', far from 'terminal when she was diagnosed with breast cancer seven years ago. A more enlightened and positive approach to cancer management could give us many more 'Janes' to celebrate.

Dr Phil Barber, Manchester, UK

i'm sorry, all these adults here are saying "oo gcse's are too easy" but yet they are not here taking them, there is increasing pressure on teenagers to do well at gcse levels. with the government telling us that it is all about the results results results it is any wonder why we struggle to achieve outstaning grades?? i ahve recently taken my gcse's and done very well indeed. i come from a very intellectual middle class family and yet i had to work hard to achieve my grades. when one of these adults sit down and take 15 plus exams within a month - all of these exams having a vast effect on our future - then yes they are welcome to complain about how easy they are. yet is it really true that all of these adults know everyting there is to know about molecules and literature "just like that". i think it is very unfair how everybody is making out that teenagers are so dumb and disruptive, yes some are, but give the rest of us a break!

rebecca, norfolk, england

Why not just send 5 tops from the Cornflakes packet, I never studied physics to exam level choosing chemistry & biology. After looking at the test paper perhaps I should. If this is a true reflection on the standard of education now, we should all be worried.

Rick, Vienna, Austria

Yep - got 79% when, back in the day, we were shunted off either to arts/languages or all science subjects.
I did arts/languages. My single science was Biology. Think I'll take a few science GCSEs now to boost my ratings.
Good gracious.

Deb Silacco, London, UK

To Christopher Garvey ... I am happy the paper doesn't use spell check , as you will realize and recognize that spell checks favored here are American and therefore of little use to the UK (except of course to help lower standards ) ... get with the program !
I am pleased to report that the above contains no spelling mistakes according to spell check !

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

Q7 is wrong as well. There is at least 1 school in the Anglosphere (I can't remember exactly where) that uses iris recognition for identifying students.

Daniel Lucraft, London, UK

That physics paper is an absolute joke. Its an insult to anyone within the field of science.

Karim Dhanani, Knysna, South Africa

If instead of being a multiple choice question for GCSE Science, Q5 had been posed as one for, say, Degree Political Science, as:
"As Chair of the Government Science Funding Committee which approach should you recommend giving reasons for and against each option"

Ian Currie, Ballater, Scotland

Although a lot of people spend a lot of time making my 3 year old A*s at GCSE seem as worthless as possible, there is one subject that I can honestly say will be safe. Maths at GCSE is consistently increasing in difficulty, containing what was A-level material 10 years ago. Furthermore, the dumbing down of the Science GCSE is less due to attempts to make it easier, and more, I fear, due to vain attempts to make it topical, with liberal applications of alternate energy sources etc. I don't pretend that the average student knows enough about science at the end of their GCSEs (that's one reason why some people still believe in God), but at least those few who get a satisfactory vowel grade in Maths will be able to trounce the arithmacy of those who belittle their 7A*s and 4As.

Rohan Oliver Kandasamy, Bideford, Devon

They can't make them any easier than they are. We live in an age of 'Readers' Digest' style knowledge and quizzes. Perhaps we should sort on ability before an exam, then handicap the entrants. People of low abilitiy should only have to answer half the questions to get A*. The sorting could of course be based on a previous exam to grade people as to ability to permit handicapping at GCSE. If this idea sounds ridiculous, which it is, it is really only what is happening. The handicapping is more subtle, the brighter students are not really tested and so those with low-ability already have a head start. Result, the thick think they are cleverer than they are and the bright are shortchanged. The upshot is a need to dumb-down A levels and then apply the same thinking to its exams. Then apply to degree level courses and you have ruined the educational system totally.

david, Boston, UK

5, about the old lady's theory, is actually the one question that demands more than rote learning. However it is completely unfair to make it a multiple choice. There are other grounds than experimental for ruling the coin theory out.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I seriously hope that someone from JCQ and QCA takes the time to look at the feedback to this exam paper.
If ordinary members of the oublic can pick so many holes in it, how do you think the Physics teaching community are reacting to exam papers such as these - and not just from the Edexcel Exam Board - AQA have been just as guilty of producing 'non-Science' Physics exams.

I wonder if the government has considered this...

If under-age drinking and drug use are all allegedly on the increase, and exam results get better year-on-year, can we not conclude that drink and drugs improve exam results?

It's just massaging the numbers. moving the goal posts and trying to cater for all.

Many within Physics (that I have spoken to) cannot believe the recent changes to the Science curricula and cannot see how they hope to encourage uptake of the Sciences at higher levels. It's just 'Science for Media' now, there's no real science left!

Conor Davies, Harrogate,

OK - Physics O Level in the 60's - Grade 1 (yes, grades went from 1 to 9, 1 to 5 being a pass). And i totally agree what a travesty... but it's also symptomatic of a wider issue in exam setting. Have a look at the sample driving test questions - exactly the same muddled thinking, poor expression, exacrable grammar and plain wrong answers - and the Director of the Test Setting body's response? "We have to make it possible for less intellectual people who may still be good drivers to pass". It's almost a disease.

I'd also ask if, given the enormous response to this story, whether the Times will follow it up or those in charge will take any notice at all.

This also links to another Times story regarding the fear of Exam Apartheid - independent schools opting for IGCSEs, Int Baccalaureat, etc, while state schools were stuck with GCSE and A Level. I can't say I blame them and, given the money, that's where I'd send my kids.

Stuart Dollin, Halifax, West Yorkshire

The following questions from the paper are so simple that they have no place in an exam taken after 6 years of secondary education at the age of sixteen years: questions 1,2, 3,4,6,7,9,10,12,15,20,21,23,24,26,30,31,32,33,35,36,37. Getting these questions right doesnt qualify the pupil for anything. They clearly have no intention of having a well-educated workforce in England.

Sally Johnson, London,

Alan Forster, Huntingdon. I did my GCSEs in 1995, they were a joke then, but I can assure you that these questions do NOT go further than the old GCSEs. My personal favourite (which is something we would've known at primary (if not nursery school) is question 9. Do they really need to give you a choice to answer the question of what you use to observe the stars? And the patronising questions 17-19. How old are the kids taking this paper? Three?

Good God, no wonder when I teach my undergrads they need to be taught basic things, which we took for granted aged 12 - Snell's law for instance. And what is with giving, not only F = ma, again something we were expected to know aged 12, and then weight = mass x acceleration of freefall?

I despair. As a physicist, there is absolutely no way I would teach at school. And I expect many others feel the same - what you are expected to teach is a joke, and has no resemblance to physics whatsoever.

cricketgirl, UK,

I am 11 years old, 12 in December and managed to score 60% in this "exam". What, may I ask, was the point of the "old lady on the moon question"? What does that have to do with physics?! Plus, you only need 18% to obtain a C grade! A pass does not mean anything when you need only guess your way through the exam. You obviously can't fail unless you try. And if everybody passes, doesn't everybody fail?

PM, Sandhurst, England

Why bother with tests like this (or others)?

I say: with every birth certificate, a free PhD in the subject of your choice as soon as you can say "ma-ma", "da-da" and "pooh"

J.B.M. Guy, Melbourne, Australia

I did physics O-level in the late 70s, then at A-level and degree level. This exam paper is absolute unbelievable rubbish and is not remotely equivalent to the O-level. I can't believe that pupils are considered prepared for the rigor of an A-level physics course after completing this GCSE, unless the A-level has also been similarly dumbed down. Many of the questions are at a level I might expect of a bright final-year primary school pupil! Most notable is that the paper contains almost no mathamatical problem solving, and even the simplest formulae are provided in the paper (speed = distance/time !!! - and they don't even have the guts to use the term 'velocity'). My old physics teacher, who was a master of mental arithmetic, would turn in his grave. Surely the government cannot seriously imagine that they can create an internationally competitive scientifically trained workforce on this basis? Inward-investing companies will not be fooled by this rubbish.

Andrew Shields, Luton,

Got off to a flying start with question 1, which is complete nonsense. Answer C is only correct if either the planet it is orbiting has somehow "stopped" or we are in a rotating frame of reference which matches that planet's orbit (otherwise the orbit would be a cycloid)... And if C is correct, then why isn't D? Presumably you are supposed to interpret C as a satellite of A; whereas D doesn't have a planet to orbit. So the assumption is that there are no orbits in this solar system other than the ones shown.
A badly-set question with no obvious correct answer.

Matt, Chislehurst, Kent

In my defence, I'd like to point out that neither line on the graph in Q34 shows the wave being reflected. One line is not passed on by the outer core, and the other continues all the way to the centre. And if we want to take Q40 into account, most waves are refracted by the mantle and don't take the direct path.

I think we all agree that even those questions that are correct are pretty badly written. A friend was wondering about standing waves and violins until I pointed out that Q17 is really "Sound travels as..." and the rest is all just distraction.

And as for Q5...!

Jon, Winchester,

ok Sarah, Ashford, I'll explain. As you rightly point out, the distance to the CENTRE of the Earth is 6370 km, but the question asks for you to calculate to the CORE. That is about 2800km. Perhaps that will help?

GH, Cirencester,

dear editor, the uk prime minister made available £20m for our flooded country a few weeks ago. i hear he will spend £20bn on a new` thames barrage for london as the old one isnt big enough. the london olympics will probably cost another £20bn and i suspect the rest of us not living in london will have to provide much of that cash as well. do you folk down south really think we are completely stupid up north. no wonder the U3A stops at watford. why has london now got statues in parliament square of foreigners (mandella and lincoln)? surely that place should be reserved for engish heroes.

bill smith, cheshire, uk

Well, I did GCSE physics last year (got an A, too), but I've already forgotten a lot of the stuff I learnt, which is because I had to do physics, rather than wanting to. Students who actually like science and want to carry on doing it after it stops being compulsory will do the extra work they need to do well in the exams, so don't need easier questions. And students who don't like doing science won't really be persuaded to carry on just because the exams got slightly easier.

sam, farnham, UK

The few contributors who consider this exam paper difficult seem to have forgotten one important factor - they haven' t taken the course leading up (down?) to it. It's hard to see how anyone with a modicum of common sense could have any trouble in passing this farcical 'test' after 2 years of preparation.
Science isn't alone in the depths of its dumbing down. I'd suggest that the publication of a GCSE French paper would be met with equal incredulity.

Margaret, Ormskirk,

This exam paper is just about what I expected. The key UK cultural trend indicator in recent years has been the the introduction and increasingly widespread use of the F-word in prime-time BBC TV programs, which (outside of Monty Python, and then only once) was unheard of before the late 90s. Shoud we in future start to hear the use of the F-word within the dialogue of the Radio 4 Today program, I predict a simultaneous further decline in GCSE exam standards, perhaps down to the level of achievement that used to be expected of an 8-year old in the 70s. You may think me facetious but I suspect there are common causal factors at work here. It may even prove possible to derive a grade-inflation adjusted measure of the value of a given grade in a GCSE exam, obtained in a specific year, by dividing the pass mark of that grade by some constant multiple of the number of occurrences of the F-word in BBC TV programs in the week of the exam; more research is needed.

Professor N. A. Poleon, Bekesbourne,

I have read a few of the comments here and I am intrigued at the criticisms of the test.

1) some of you don't appear to live in the uk and therefore i am not sure what difference it makes to you what our testing system is like.

2) this paper is from the 'Core' GCSE science - it is intended as a introduction to science at GCSE. Any pupils hoping to do A level in physics will have to do much more (difficult) science in year 11 - including many calculations etc.

3) Some of you have bemoaned the ease of the test while failing to acknowledge that it is both a foundation AND a higher tier paper. the nearest equivalent in 'old money' is that this is a combination of both an O level and a CSE.

4) any 'dumbing down' happened in the switch to GCSE from O level some 20 years ago - if you must blame someone, blame the Thatcher government for that, not NuLab (as some here have).

Most of the comments here have come from those who's experience of education is, frankly, out of date

Ben Littlewood, London, UK

Contrary to most opinions here I think the paper is a good one which tests real understanding of Physics and not just the ability to regurgitate formulae and facts.
I took 'O' level physics in 1958 and went on to study it at Liverpool University.
I agree with all the answers as published today here on 1st September 2007.

Ian Taylor, Middlesbrough, UK

Barry Holmes (in Christchurch, New Zealand), What is it to you if our 'socialists' stuff up our education? you don't live here it seems. PS it was Thatchers government that switched form 'hard' O-levels to 'easy' GCSEs. Get you facts correct before bemoaning the collapse of society, please.

Ben Littlewood, London, Uk

This is appalling. When I took my 'O' level in Physics, it contained questions on Light, Heat, Sound, Electricity, Magnetism, and Mechanics. The questions involved describing experimental verifications of the laws of Physics as well as computations of physical values using established formulae. All of this had to be learned.

Exams should not be constructed purely for the benefit of children who have no aptitude for abstract reasoning or who have been badly taught.

John, Bromley, UK

This is to avoid students being turned off science? The really worrying thing is that by focussing upon the masses having a passing understanding, they're neglecting the best and brightest.

Do we really want to bore the pants off the brightest students?

Is this what we need?

If it is deemed necessary (as it seems to be) for everyone to ave some understanding, then the solution could be to have a 'science plus' course, which aims to stretch those with an aptitude in Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Maths - bright children (not kids - that's goats) often feel insulted by such trivial exams.

As well they should.

Mark, Aldershot, Surrey

Question 9 has no place in ANY school exam paper taken at age 16. Perhaps it might be appropriate for children of age 8? Passing question 9 does not justify awarding the examinee any marks towards a qualification in anything. The UK is finished in science and technology. Their kids simply aren't being taught any science if this paper is a measure of what they learn. Anyone who proceeds to a more advanced study of Physics or Electronics on this basis will be hopelessly unprepared. After seeing this paper I have decided not to set up my company's offshore R&D facility in the UK, I'm going to Germany instead. You get what you pay for.

Larry Mawson, San Francisco, USA

I think the only way to solve this dire educational problem is to scrap all the exam boards and hand responsibility for setting the curricula and exams to the universities. Departments from universities who are top rated for teaching in the subjects at A level and GCSE should set the curricula and exams and share the money from them. Say three universities have a top rated chemistry department, they get together and set the standards required and they share the money from the the papers in chemistry, the same principle applies to all other subjects. This should also have the effect of raising the standard in other universities as they try to get a share of the exam paper money.

Stephen, St. Ives, England

I am not sure there is a good relationship between a degree obtained at the age of 18-24, and the ability to be successful in later life (whatever you mean by success!). A degree is rather like a passport issued by a government, a meaningless political gesture where the holder may not be at all qualified to meet the requirements of the real environment.. I suspect many of my best students are much more intelligent than their exam results would imply, and the next tranche down rather worse than their exam results imply (because they work too hard!). I suppose it is possible to be well-educated without ever having taken an exam at all! All one can say about examinations is that they test something. rather obscure.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Hello Frank Upton,
"what is the opposite of 'dumbing down'? Nobody knows? I thought not."
How about wising up?
Something that those responsible for the education system ought to consider, maybe?
I got all the answers right, even if some of those supplied were erroneous.
Some have been corrected, but 5 is just silly and could only be corrected by excision.
11 is at least contentious if not plain wrong, as pointed out below.
An analog signal can carry as much information as a digital signal, it depends on the level of engineering used to implement the technology, it is not fundamental to their nature.
30. Two right answers.
The ambiguity of question 34 makes it ill-conceived. 35 could be A or B.
38 is debatable, is it the non-linear behaviour, or the lack of knowledge? 40 is wrong, but the correct answer is hard to supply as the diagram is insufficiently clear, it looks as if it is meant to be the shadow zone, so neither type of wave will reach this point.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

I was horrified to read that the Government wants science papers to be made easier. The physics paper on your website is more akin to a TV quiz show than an examination in science. Even if you simply tick all the A answers you can score 20% (32.5% if you tick all the C's). I understand Grade G is a pass which requires 18%. My wife, who has never studied physics at any time in her life scored 42%.
A key piece of knowledge in science is to know which formula to select, not difficult when it is given.
There is a bottom line to all this, students leave school not being able to read, write or carry out simple arithmetic but can still pass exams. Life is not so lenient.
If the Government believes this is the way to prepare young people to compete in the technological age then they are more stupid than they would have us believe.

Richard D E Stott, Pershore, Worcestershire

I'm 18 and just read the first 10 questions of that exam. I was discusted after reading the first question, since the 'correct' answer doesn't truely reflect the path of a moon. To answer question 3 all you have to know is what the word 'between' means.
I got question 7 wrong because I've never been to an airport where they have used my eyes for personal identification (to my knowledge), but that's beside the point - what does the question have to do with science?

This test is ridiculous as is. Seriously, if I was told to take it I'd probably fail just to spite the person forcing me to take it. If the current test is deemed too difficult, schools are failing at an abominable rate.

Oh, and the article mentions that "the number of students taking physics A level since 1984 has fallen by 57 per cent". This is a fairly incomplete fact, since kids are now taking physics B level and C level. I only took C, and I can't think of a single person I know who actually took A.

Ryan, Austin,

The skin cancer / eye damage one, question 8, is the worst.

All of these types of radiation can damage eyes. X-rays/gammas/UV can all cause skin cancer.

They are obviously fishing for 'UV' as 'correct' but, as the question stands, anything but 'microwaves' is a correct answer. Was this paper written by someone who actually knows any physics?

Ben, Birmingham,

My son has a Masters degree in Physics from Cambridge. What is he doing? He's working in the City as a financial analyst and getting very well paid for doing so.
Unless we pay our teachers what they are worth as the educators of our future, we will never get the calibre of teacher our children deserve. Only the very altruistic of our brightest science graduates want to teach in schools nowadays.

S. Smith, Brighton,

I sat this years (summer) physics paper on the AQA board, only a single multiple choice question on the paper. But, my year is the last to see the old style exams - the year below mine is using the module based course, which includes these simple multiple-choice questions.

I am not pleased by the decision to move to these papers, I think it makes the courses easier. I have also been told that the focus of science courses at GCSE is now mostly 'application of science' rather than science itself.

Thomas, London,

Are you sure you have not been duped by some source that this paper is actually a genuine GCSE Physics exam paper? The level of knowledge and skill required to answer these questions and the assessment method itself seem more appropriate to SAT level exams sat by 13-14 year olds.

Thea, London,

How can we take this newspaper seriously when they can not even spell Science correct. Shame the editor couldn't even use Spell Check.
"Students taking GCSE scienc have a choice of two tiers,"
Exams seem to be getting easier, yes but then children are becoming brighter. This test is a discrace, not enough science in it. The Government really must stop thinking that everyone should do great in everything. There should be always some the surpass others fact not everyone is a genius.

Christopher Garvey, Andover, Hants, Uk

To Khoushwant The question does not clearly imply that depth of 2800km; however, accepting that 2800km is your starting depth, your calculation is the time for the wave to travel to the Earth's surface and back. The data provided does not give a depth for the Earth's Core anyway.

John, Stockport,

I remember laughing at my O level paper back in 79, there were some silly questions on that one.
Whether it is easier or harder than my O level I am not sure (It seems about the same but I may have got thicker over the years) this paper is certainly more interesting. Less emphasis on balls on inclined planes and more on interstellar spacecraft Tsunami's and other fascinating things. Much more inspiring, don't knock it!

Dominic, London, UK

To Ian Mcr,

Q19 is a VERY bad question. Here is not the place to enter into a detailed discussion about information theory but it is simply a fact that BOTH B and D could be correct statements. In practice, comparing like media with like, e.g digital television with analogue television digital signals do carry more information, but AT THE EXPENSE of much higher bandwidth. This is to allow for coding, error checking etc. and this makes the digital signal "immune" to a certain level of (analogue) noise. In theory the amount of information carried by a signal is a property of its bandwidth, not whether it's analogue of digital, and for every digital channel definition you propose, I can propose an analogue channel of greater information content. B is not a good answer.

Anyone who FUNDAMENTALLY understands information theory would NEVER ask this completely gormless question. Kids taught mickey mouse Info T might get this question right and think they understand the subject.

Andrew (PhD Physics), London,

Ok Khoushwant explain to us how that works as the graph clearly shows that it is 6,370km to the centre of the Earth.

The scientist estimated the time to the Earth's core and back, ie 2 x 6,370 = 12,740km.

Time = distance / speed

Distance quite clearly in this example is 12,740km and speed is 10km/s.

Perhaps the exam board could explain...

Sarah, Ashford,

Q1: C is correct only for a moon about a planet about another star. A is correct for a moon about a planet moving about the star in the centre. A moon travels around the star with its parent planet, in a cycloidal path. The cycloid wave would be very small compared to the diameter of the planet's orbit, so it would appear to be an elipse (or circle) on the scale of the diagram. I know it's not drawn to scale, but it could never appear as a closed ellipse, as shown in C, on any scale. The questions go mainly downhill from there.

Someone once pointed out that "intelligence" tests do not test intelligence, but the similarity of the one tested to the one setting the test. A high scorer is just someone as stupid as the journalist that made up this story.

If you travel to the moon to look for coins, the old lady will think you're after them and cover them up, won't she.

I've just taken the test by spinning coins: 30%.

BME, Sandhurst, UK

The answer to 40 should be D (neither P nor S). The diagram shows both S and P waves. The path of the P and S waves curve or refract as they go through the mantle. S waves are unable to go through the core. The last of these mantle S and P waves will therefore hit the Earth's surface to the left of R. The first of the refracted P waves (after leaving the core) will hit to the right of R.

R actually lies in the “shadow zone” for both S and P waves. The shadow zone for S waves is between 105 and 180 degrees and that for P waves is between 105 and 142 degrees (if the earthquake occurs at 0 degrees).

Gopal Chand (PhD), Cambridge, UK

What is missing here is what grades any particular mark would give you.
Does anyone know how scores were marked/grades awarded?
(As an OAP, I'd like to know how badly UK standards have degraded.)

Eric Lockeyear, Polruan, Cornwall,UK

The answer to question 5 is wrong. A probe landing on the moon and would only be able to provide information on a very small area of its surface. Failure to find any coins on this small area would certainly not "prove" they are not to be found anywhere on the moon.

None of the available answers could prove or disprove the "old woman" hypothesis, but I would suggest answer A, as exponents of the "old lady" hypothesis could be challenged to provide evidence. If they are not able to present evidence to support their hypothesis, it can be rejected on grounds of reason without the expense of sending a probe to the moon.

Peter Kelsall, Nottingham, UK

I have just asked my son to have a go at this test. He is not 11 until next month and, naturally, has never studied physics, yet with no previous specialist knowledge, and by guessing, educated or otherwise (he is a bright boy) he nevertheless managed to score 21/40 - just over 50%.

If this exam is typical of the GCSEs it is hardly surprising that there is a plethora of A and A* grades by those who are supposed to have actually studied a given subject.

Catherine Webster, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire

I have just read through that exam paper. Please tell me that its a joke and NOT an actual test paper. How can they make it easier than that? Colouring in perhaps!!!!

Peter J. Orme, Birmingham, UK

What's the point in dumbing down the questions when the examiners are giving credit for the wrong answers? By which I mean question 3 - you'll note this *is* in the affected foundation paper. And what's the deal with question 5 - why should we invest millions on a probe whose discovery of no coins on the moon will only provide negative reinforcement for the idiots who believed the hypothesis (i.e. those with most to gain from a dumbing-down of a seriously dumbed-down back-of-a-fag-packet paper)? This is an embarrassing indictment of the government's failure to engage with or even take science seriously.

Martin, Glasgow,

Apparently the Big Bang now has an origin (Q30). We are all the origin. Think of it this way: Take a deflated balloon. Put a bunch of dots on it with a marker. Each of those dots is a galaxy. The surface the balloon is our universe. Now blow up the balloon. All the galaxies move away from ALL THE OTHER GALAXIES. They are not moving away from any origin on the surface of the balloon (ie, in the whole universe). Sure, they are moving away from the inside space of the balloon, but that inside is not in our universe. Our universe has no center, and no edge.

Brian, Akron, Ohio, USA

Having looked at the sample exam, I would not want to drive a car, or live near a nuclear power station, designed by future engineers who found this "low demand" science a challenge!

Peter, London,

What happens when these kids are running the country?

It will be the end of UK PLC.

Kevin Smith, London, England

My nephew has just received his highers results back and he got an 'A' for physics, ...... I asked him a couple of absolutely basic, and fundamental, things about energy equations and he just stared at me blankly. How on earth can they say that Science education is succeeding when we are feminising the courses (girls do better at multiple choice) by removing hands-on work that captures boys imaginations to the benefit of girls? No-one it seems is willing to step outside the feminised nanny apron strings, no wonder string theory is shot so full of holes. This failure in education is not new just look at what Smolin has to say about those who have been at the top of world Physics for the last three decades. Blinkered approaches to Science must end, and that begins at school by bringing back experimentation and people who listen to experimental results. Entangled particle experiments cry ouit to us that we have to dump the concept of any more than zero dimensions, .. but feminists can't.

John, Dundee, UK

All well and good, but maybe the authors should ensure the answers provided are accurate. After a cursory glance, Q3 is evidently wrong. 'Visible Light' between 'Microwaves' & 'Infrared'? Considering a chart of the electromagnetic spectrum is provided with this question, it's inexcusable to get this wrong.

Alex Maund, Perth, Western Australia

Careful Ewart,

You'll end being seconded, it seems you're just the person they need to set these papers.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

I think the answers given are wrong. 3 should be 'd' unless the electromagnetic spectrum has shifted to allow more students to pass.

How on does a digital signal travel quicker than an analogue one as 19 states? I'm sure an EM wave of radio wavelength travels at exactly the same speed whether or not it is analogue or digital. I believe the answer to be 'b' - a digital signal can carry more (easily gleamable and usable) information.

I also agree with the idea that 34 doesn't contain a correct solution. The total distance is 12740km at an average speed of 10km/s. Therefore the time is (12740/10)=1274 seconds. Nes pas?

Anyway, the dumbing down of our kids only serves to make more money for business. The less people there are from Britain who can fulfil the role, the more cheaper minds can be brought in to fill the void. We are a services economy and consumers as a population - without the ability to be self reliant in the future, we are at the mercy of the tides, so to speak.

Alistair Kipling, Birmingham,

This paper is part of a suite of exams that students have to take to be awarded GCSE science and does not represent a Physics GCSE in its entirety. There is another compulsory component testing pupils awareness of how science works and quite complex judgements about how evidence and arguments are judged in the scientific community. Before a GCSE in physics or double/single award science is made pupils also have to demonstrate practical skills for another smaller component. The dumbing down argument is perfectly valid but this example is misleading.

c bainger, Shrewsbury, shropshire

That's a GCSE paper? 30 years ago, most of my primary school class could have passed that at 11 years old, before ever going to secondary school. The most that this paper can assess is the ability to steer a pencil correctly. Anyone that can read can learn that lot from scratch given an hour in the local library. What do they actually do for the five years they spend studying for this?

Never mind playing around with the papers and questions. If it's at this stage already, just sack all the teachers and hire some that can do the job properly, then you can worry about the standard of the paper.

God help Britain, because science certaily won't if this is the standard we are turning out.

KR, Stockport,

It's fallen a long way since we had to explain the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.......

MarkS, Leeds,

I'll tell you how to make people study science. Start paying scientists in line with law, medicine and engineering. The current average renumeration for scientists is a joke. I'm just finishing my Doctorate and am seriously considering financial consultancy. Science is hard, often dry, and requires considerable effort for all but the most gifted. Reward us for our dedication! Modern kids arn't daft, quite the opposite, theyre gonna take it easy route to greater riches & a fun life in the city, not suffer for 7 years to then live in somwhere like Harlowe on a wage equivalent to a plumber.

Stephen, Glasgow,

Passed my GCE Physics in 1967 with agreat deal of difficulty. Achieved 38 correct answers with this test in less than 15 minutes. Something is horribly wrong, this could surely not be made any easier.

Michael Arnold, Northampton, UK

This is just dumb. I have recently got 198 marks out of 200 on two modules, getting one question wrong (each paper is out of 36). Any easier and it will be impossible to spot the best marks and devalue testing.

Ben, 15,

I agree that question 3 should be d not c and that the calculations for 34 indicate none of the answers are correct.
(i got an a when i took my GCSE in 1993). even out of practice i got more than 80%. perhaps if the workplace seemed to place more value on science qualifications students might be more inclinded to work hard at it. I have good science a levels but could find no prospects of a good career in that field. while my diploma in economics from the OU seems to pay dividends.

Ben, folkestone, uk

That is ridiculous! An insult to human itelligence. I am currently a GCSE student, but in Northern Ireland. Our exams, provided by CCEA, are considerably more difficult and much more 'real'. Never would we be asked about a old lady on the moon, rather we are often to explain how things like MRI machines work, in considerable detail.

Rachel Johnston, Lurgan,

Time 9 mins 8 seconds. Result 38/40. Why could they not have had this level of question in the 1970's when I took my examinations. Any chance of the Times getting hold of a test for German, French, Dutch students and letting us see what the competition is doing?

Jonathan Mills, Brighton,

I did my GCSEs 7 years ago and I actually recognise some of those questions! I actually think this is a fair standard of exam, with a balance of questions requiring calculations and those recalling facts.

The jump to Physics A-level is massive but you just can't teach 15/16 year olds that kind of stuff without alienating them completely. I'm now doing a PhD in science and every year of my education I have been told to discount a lot of the stuff previously taught as a simplified version. It's just the way science works!

Kathryn, london,

All this stresses the need of a secondary education with a range of different schools (similar to the German model), where different needs can be addressed more appropriately. That fantasy that all the youngsters can be taught in the same centre have proved laughable and it has seriously damaged education in this country. Not everyone have the same ability to chieve the same goals. As well as providing opportunities for the less able, we need to provide the more able with a more demanding formation. The UK cannot afford more lowering of standards if we are to remain competitive (And universities should not lower their standards in order to facilitate the transition to higher education. That will cause the ultimate failure). Do we need more evidence appart from that provided by employers, that education in this country needs to be completely reformed?

Frank, london, uk

This is really scarey! Not only is this unbelievably easy, but the emphasis has utterly changed from comprehension to regurgitation. "Where would you find an iris scanner?", come on - this is not science! This is a curriculum driven by the need to have
results reflect effort not ability, and to give girls better relative results.

Robert Jones, Taunton, Somerset

Physics seems to have been redefined as (very) elementary astronomy. No wonder kids aren't interested when "physics" is presented as something so superficial, abstract and irrelevant, instead of giving an understanding of the physical world they actually encounter.

The trouble is it's hard to see how to improve things when our policy makers don't themselves appear to have a grasp of cause and effect at even the simplest level. If the objective of education is to make the less gifted kids feel good without doing any work, let's just give them *all* an A and then employers will know they have to do their own testing to find candidates who have actually done some learning.

Nigel Robertson, Melton Mowbray, UK

Iam not so sure I agree that making things easier allows pupils have a feeling of attainment. Rather the other way around they know it is easy and a reasonable/good grade can be had from a bare minimum (if any) of revision, so why bother working during the two years.

In the past I have given these papers to my KS3 pupils to take and they have done very well (over 50%) even though they have not taken the GCSE course yet.

stuart, braintree,

Jim Sinclair thinks that the GCSE science paper should be made easier in order to offer students questions "at their level".

What stupidity. The reason that the harder questions are deemed not "at their level" is that they are not being taught well enough, not that the exam is too easy. An exam, fundamentally, is there to set a standard. If students fail to meet the standard, the solution is not to make the exam simpler, but to jack up the quality of the teaching. Continually lowering the bar like this can only mean that, in future, kids will be taught even less, until they are not being taught anything at all!

As it is, this exam is gobsmackingly easy to someone (me) with no more of a formal science background than dual science 14 years ago. Much of it isn't even recognisable as physics! My physics papers at age 16 were Newton's laws all the way (calculating forces, momentum and so-on) not old ladies hiding coins on the moon. The former is a worthwile education, the latter not.

Ben Kotzee, Watford, Herts,

I got 65% and I've never even taken physics, ever. Just from general knowledge, and some basic (long-ago) math. How are letter grades apportioned. From when I was at school , this grade would get me a C, maybe a C+. At one school I attended, the pass was 60, so this would have only merited me a D (which coincidentally is what I got in Chemistry -- I'm not a scientist). How much study/revision time to students taking the GCSE get in class to prepare for the exam?

Sarah, Ottawa, Canada

I believe that several of the answers are wrong. Can you check that you have correctly stated the answers?

simon laity, penzance, cornwall

What an embarrassment of an exam paper!
This paper relies more on tripping kids up because they don’t pay attention to the question than on any real knowledge or understanding of the subject!

Why are they given every formula? Aren’t they expected to KNOW that speed = distance / time (or any of the other formulae for that matter?).
I really feel sorry for the schoolchildren of today. I’m sure they hardly ever get the chance to try anything out in the classroom (‘elf and safety) in either physics, chemistry or biology. What a shame, they will know so much less about the world around them.
How are we going to produce the next generation of Engineers (no, not "repair man" engineers - more correctly called technicians, but professional engineers who conceive, design and invent things), doctors, vets, scientists............
One day we will discover that a country can't exist on media studies or buisiness degrees alone!

jon turner, luxembourg, LU

I got 35/40 in about five minutes. The ones I got wrong are actually quite interesting, and I think I `really' got 38/40.
11 --- no astronomy as part of my O or A Levels, so that's material being covered that wasn't covered before.
19 --- A surely isn't right: signals all propagate at the same speed. My B is the least ludicrous of the bunch, but A is simply wrong.
34 --- D cannot possibly be the correct answer. At 10km/s a wave front would travel 560 000 km in the space of 56 000s. The diameter of the earth is of the order of 12 000km. The earth's core starts about 2800 km down (as shown by the discontinuity in the graphs) so the correct answer is B.
39 --- So what if the distance as measured from one station passes through the position of the other? The correct answer is surely A.
40. Never done any seismology.
My A Level physics is 24 years ago, so I'm feeling quite relaxed about the exam, but a little worried about the quality of the Times' marker.

xyzzy, Birmingham, UK

This country is doomed. We need to immediately fire all the education establishment, from ministerial level down and start from scratch. The Chinese and Indians are laughing till they wet their pants.
I was considering becoming a math teacher, after a successful career in US media. I now realize it would be a waste of my time.

Nick Black, London,

This paper is not a test of Physics! Several of the questions cannot be answered by a good candidate, with a knowledge of physics, because the real answer is not available.
The orbit of a moon around a planet, orbiting a star is a cycloid! Is that answer given? NO! The diagram does not show correct relative motions so is meaningless.
The answer to 3 is not C!
The question on ionising radiation causing skin cancer cannot be answered as all the sources can cause cancer!

You are teaching children RUBBISH, and politically correct rubbish at that. A future scientist or engineer would get less marks than they should because they know too much, and would therefore be unable to give the expected answers. Where are the questions on mechanics and electricity, the whole basis of our technological future? This paper is not worth anything as a qualification, so much for an A*!

DaveZ, Belfast, UK

With all the teen pregnancies, would it not be more important to have tougher Biology papers than Physics?

Matthew, London,

Am I the only person in the universe who found this Physics paper difficult? I got half marks. The geniuses who achieved high marks blame the current educational system for dumbing-down the exams. Perhaps I should blame my mediocrity on diabolically bad physics teachers (in a good state grammar school) forty-odd years ago.
Presumably your correspondents are not a representative sample of the population, so we will never know whether it is just me who is weak at physics.
Schools have had difficulties recruiting physics teachers for at least thirty years. If we cannot recruit physicists who are good communicators, then how can we inspire young people with a clear understanding and enjoyment of the subject?
Your correspondents clearly had good physics teachers, and have good memories and enthusiasm for the subject - why don't they come and teach the subject, and show us how it is done?

S. Newton, Brighton, UK

Are you serious?? The level of these questions as mentioned in comments above are laughable. Also, are you sure Mr Times that you got all the answers right at the bottom of the article...i'd have to disagree...also, whats with questio 34????

Bob Loblaw, New Springfield,

These questions are imbecilic. Not merely because they require too little science knowledge of the students, but because the people who wrote the questions had insufficient knowledge of science (not to mention of English) to be qualified to write an exam in the first place. The use of crude storytelling in the questions, with their variously named and utterly irrelevant characters is particularly revolting, but not as disgusting as the evident lack of science knowledge revealed by some of the questions as has already been noted by others in these comments.

miramon lluagor, poictesme, france

The real point is that in 15 - 20 years when the current generation of engineers and senior civil servants have retired there will be no option but to import tens of thousands of well educated Chinese, Russian and Indians to keep the infrastructure of this country from literally collapsing.

That is if they want, and are allowed, to come. This is by no means certain as world politics may have changed significantly in 15 years.

You can see the declining infrastructure today, but the last significant crop of engineers are already aged about 40-45 with completely inadequate numbers of new engineers following them.

The UK is on a one way ticket to civil unrest and third world living standards purely because of dumbed down education.

The pigeons are coming home to roost.

Will Thomas, Stockholm,

Wow... I did questions 17 to 33 and got 13/17. Not bad for a translator of German to English. I got grade C for my Physics GCSE in 82. I can't do more questions now since I've got to work.

One thing that irritated me - once again, the English can't make a comparative form of an adverb. In question 22 it should be 'more quickly' not 'quicker'.

I'm considering taking an A or O level again - just to see if things have become easier. Does anyone know if it's possible if one lives in Germany now?

Tina, Duesseldorf, Germany

Let's face it: there is no true sense of intellectual rigour in our discredited education system. The Physics GCSE paper, used as an example, makes no demands whatsoever on the bright child. No wonder the proportion of A's is so high.

However, it does achieve at least one of today's manipulated social goals: its undemanding format provides less able children with the opportunity to pass a public examination, a feat entirely beyond them when I took "O Level" Physics, in 1963.

Dr. P. G. Hollywood, Great Wakering, Essex, U.K.

As an A-level physics teacher it's so easy to see why numbers of students are falling. This test leaves them totally unprepared for the A-level with the amount of mathematical calculation required almost zero.

In the article in the paper it gives a figure of 18% as the mark required to get a C grade on the higher paper. I would be very interested in knowing where the number comes from, as I always believed 40% to be the lowest mark needed.

James, Norwich,

This is truely shocking. I would hope that these questions would not have stretched me much past the age of 10.

Are you sure someone hasn't confused this with an old 11 Plus exam? I just can not believe that anyone would be satisfied with less than 38 from 40 at the age of 16 (and those errors collected as a result of 'carelessness').

If this is indicative of a 'tough' subject at GCSE, I just despair for our education system and even more for the children currently passing through it.

Edwin Thornber, Bucharest,

What worries me more is that results in that year would have been even higher had the standard of questioning been better.

If the only thing stopping most students from getting an A* is the obscurity and in some cases stupidity of the questions rather than the intelligence of the pupil then we're in an even bigger problem than we think.

Where are the written answers? I took this test 4 years ago and distinctly remember vast pages of calculations of the power and resistances of a hairdryer and descriptions of why a man in a parachute slowed down with reference to a graph etc... Surely the whole exam wasn't multiple guess?

James Regan, Cheltenham, England

I've just shown some of these questions to some of my collegues (all Microelectronics designers). The general concensus is that the questions in this paper are shockingly ambiguous in places, and a large number of the answers are based on unstated assumptions which lead to the answer being wrong.

In addition, multiple choice eliminates the ability to assess the student's reasoning capabilities - which in a field such as Physics is essential.

James, Bristol, Bristol

This has nothing to do with socialists, for goodness sake. This paper is a complete joke. My Standard grade paper three years ago was much harder. This really is on the borderline between science and an easy pub quiz. However, it is certainly revealing that the good old 'the left are responsible for everything' brigade has arrived.

John, Aberdeen, Scotland,

Ludicrous. The official answers also have errors.

And how is it possible for any sane person to give an answer to question 5.

James Smith, London,

What a shame... Anyway, for a nation which economy is increasingly more dependant on shopping centre culture, what do we want science for?. Leave that to more developed countries.

Frank, london, uk

The answer to question 3 is not C..... Hope it was a Times typo, not the "correct answer" for those poor kids exams.

Dr A, London,

On reflection, the furore here about standards is mainly political in the sense that we, via our MPs etc. choose to teach our children certain subject matter to a given standard - if that is woodwork, flower arranging or quantum mechanics then so be it.

I don't know whether the raft of wrong answers originally given is the fault of the journalists or Edexcel - the fact that many were corrected after comments on here implies mostly the former.

The real outrage to my mind is that Edexcel set these questions in the first place when so many of them ( I estimate over 50%) are, to anyone with a proper, decent understanding of physics, misleading, vague, confused or simply amateurish. Edexcel either do not employ a professional physicist (as opposed to a teacher who may have taught physics once) to check/vet these questions, or their (QA) systems are woefully inadequate. Ed'l on this showing is not fit for purpose and should be overhauled and injected with subject expertise urgently.

Andrew (PhD Physics), London,

This whole exam paper is confused, patronising and depressing. It starts with Q1, which seems to represent a moon orbiting around where a planet once used to be, and even some of the potentially testing questions like Q34 have irrelevent preambles, unclear setups, and give the wrong answer (here D instead of B).
Here's my proposed update to the sample exam:
GCSE Physics 2010. Answer TWO questions.

1. Have you opposable thumbs?
A Yes
B No
C Six and seven eighths
D Hang on a moment while I take off my shoes to check
[correct answer: A, B or D]

2. John went to Thurso for a holiday. While he was there he drew the following picture of a power station. Colour it in. How does this make you feel?
A Uneducated
B Patronised
C Intent on becoming a nuclear physicist
D Grateful to the examiners for granting me this opportunity to
deplore global warming
[correct answer: D]

Yes I am angry.

Ewart Shaw, Kenilworth,

I did my GCSE's a few years ago now (8yrs) however I don't remember being asked any of these sort of questions. I remember being asked about different types of waves and Fleming's left hand rule and a lot less about space. Some of the questions seem really odd and basic, too the point where you think is it really that simple or have I not got the point of the question. Some of the diagrams are pretty poor as well!

Sam, Bath,

There is no point in setting an exam paper where the majority of candidates cannot answer the majority of the questions. We can pretend that standards are improving for only so long, eventually the examiners have to admit the reality, which is what they have done.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I took GCSE's 17 years ago and only attained a C in Physics and Chemistry . However , I remember the papers were a real challenge and the above sample exam makes a mockery of the result that I achieved . My GCSE results are indeed useless .
If everything is to be judged by this standard , then my grade C makes me look like someone who would struggle to complete a coherent

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

The lack of clarity in some of these questions is appalling. Stop worrying about making exams easier or harder for the moment and try designing appropriate questions. Including a single correct answer within the multiple choices is always a good start.

David (Physicist), Leeds, West Yorkshire

This exam is actually hard because it's plain bizarre. Many of the questions are written in a confusing and obtuse style and have little or nothing to do with physics. It seems to me that the material was based on a set textbook with pictures (Physics for Dummies?) that the examiner jumbled around into questions for the exam. If you know the textbook and its bizarre subject matter (e.g. woman with cloak on the moon??) then you'll know how to answer the questions so that's all the examiners seem to be interested in. They're not testing the pupils' powers of reasoning or mathematical skills in any way.

Loved the post from "Teacher, england" by the way: your post was littered with grammar and spelling errors so you've summed the situation up nicely for us! I can only hope you don't teach English.

MB, Edinburgh,

Questions 6 and 7 (I didn't bother going further) have more than one correct answer.

Tom Chiverton, Poynton, UK

There's something seriously wrong with the teachers ability here, you can't keep blaming the kids or lowering the standard, teaching is a "skill", it's an art, and not all of us have it.

Ian , London,

It's quite clear alot of people think it is incorrect to "dumb down" the papers,true, however, the questions we are faced with are common sense questions, not science, and the actually science in the questions is often incorrect, what are the people taking the test meant to do with such misleading questions? If the exams were written to a higher scientific standard, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Fran Quinn-Thomas, Chester,

Q.19 is B not A
Q.34 is B not D

I found the so-called higher tier questions easier than the foundation, that maybe due to me being dyslexic and finding it difficult to understand what the foundation questions are asking. Take question 1 "Which of these shows the orbit of a moon?" Surely to understand what the drawing is showing it should be phrased as "This drawing shows the orbit paths of planets relative to a fixed position star. Which orbit path represents a moon?"

Ian, Manchester, UK

Is this really a GCSE or some Primary School test?

Or is the date April 1st?

Eddie Stuart, Elgin,

John, London

From the figure of Question 34, the seismic waves hit the outer core at a depth of about 2800km. Using their average speed of 10km/sec, and accounting for the round-trip distance, the time required is approximately 2 * 2800 / 10 = 560sec i.e. B.

Hope this helps.

Simon Potter, Guildford, Surrey

The GCSE physics paper presented seems ridiculously easy. Might it be possible for intelligent children at good schools to simply skip GCSE and take A levels at age 14-16?

(What really beggars belief is that the exam paper needs to give away simple equations like "speed = frequency x wavelength" - surely any child can learn this?)

Adrian Simms, Poole, UK

Is this exam for 16 year olds or 6 year olds, I only did my GCSE's 12 years ago but if they'd been this easy I would have got 10 A's without having to do any revision. I think I'll give very serious consideration to emigrating to a country where education is taken seriously before my children start school, because if this is the standard they have to achieve to be successful at school, heaven help them when they want a career.

Dave N, Oakam, England

Could have sworn I've seen those questions before in the Dutch Edition of Trivial Pursuit!

Graham, Genk,

Isn't it nice when the Times website works properly?
I've been sneaking back all day long to read the latest postings on this article, glad to find I'm not alone.
I have a cunning plan to settle the annual dispute over "dumbing down" - let the Times rent an examination hall in London each year, and invite volunteers from all age groups to sit/ re-sit exams from past papers: without mobile phones/pocket calculators etc. -I'm up for it if they move fairly smartly, at my age.
Better still, go for 6 subjects (including at least one foreign language).
Two/three day annual event?
It could be really great fun.

MikeM, St. Albans, England

its another stepin the systematic dumbinb down of the west, distract them with mindless media snapshots like MTV. And they will not bat an eyelid when you tell them that they need to carry an ID card with them at all times to protect against terrorists. The best way to "control" a nation is to make them all stupid. Question 1 is ridiculous, the only way anyone can answer that question 'is if they have been taught that those circles and elipses are equal to the solar system. where are the planets in that diagram that moons must orbit ?
Also what does airports using eyescanner have to do with physics ? incidentally I have never had my retina scanned at an airport, assummin of course that the retina is what that vague line is pointing out.. Its not that the tests are easier or harder, they just dont teach anything at all.

gareth, rockhampton, aus

The answer to 40 should be D (neither P nor S). The diagram shows both S and P waves. The path of the S waves curve or refract as they go through the mantle and these waves can't go through the core. The last of the S waves will therefore hit the Earth's surface to the left of R. The first of the refracted P waves (after leaving the core) will hit to the right of R.

Gopal Chand (PhD), Cambridge, UK

Why bother having 'any' tests if the results are going to be worthless.

Stuart, KENDAL, UK

To Emma

Speed = distance/time
time = 2 x distance/speed
speed = 10 km/s
when speed is 10km/s, distance is 2800 km from graph!
therefore,
time = 2 x 2800 / 10
time = 560s

Khoushwant, Mauritius,

Even George Orwell would have been ridiculed if he'd made this up.

Isn't the idea of Education to TEACH rather than to 'incentivise' children to sit an exam paper by making it easy?

Jon Leigh, Southern, France

I cannot believe assessment methods have changed so much. I sat my Triple Science papers (three papers each for Biology, Chemistry and Physics) in 2000, also with the Edexcel (London) exam board.

None of the papers contained multiple choice-style questions and even foundation-level questions required short, structured responses. Higher tier questions required extended writing relying on candidates' own abilities to synthesise and render knowledge acquired over the two-year course.

I note also that this is a combined paper for both Foundation and Higher tier candidates... each group of candidates used to sit entirely separate papers.

It's shocking that such vast changes could have occurred over such a short period of time!

Thea, London, UK

I see that the answer to Q3 has now been changed to D.

G H of Cirencester, where did you get the figure of 2,800km from? The paper shows the centre of the Earth as 6,370km. But at least you get something that looks like one of the answers!

Jon, Winchester,

The sad thing is that comments here, indignant that #34 doesn't contain the right answer as an option haven't read the question. You are meant to spot that the (blindingly obvious) discontinuity is at the perimeter of the earth's core and find the time to there and back. Not to the centre.

No good being upset about it being too simple if you can't do it yourself., even after being given the answers!

Having said that, it really is astonishing that this leads to any sort of qualification.

BTW #20 isn't physics, its Sony et al marketing and has no palce in any exam!

Pete, Edinburgh,

To John in Winchester

Q34 *is* B (560 seconds). You're misreading the question as how long does it take a seismic wave to travel to the centre of the Earth and back. The actual question asks how long to the *core* and back. The distance to the core is indicated on the graphs where the lines drop vertically (about 2800 km). So, the time to the core and back is (2800/10) x 2 = 560s.

Maybe GCSE Physics isn't quite dumbed down yet.

Dan, London, UK

I see you've corrected the answer to question 3 has been corrected now!

I agree with Mark P on Q1.

Q19, since all radio broadcasts use electromagnetic radiation which travels at the speed of light regardless of whether it is an anologue or digital signal "A - digital signals travel quicker than analogue" is clearly wrong.

I agree with GH on question 39.

Adam, Manchester, Uk

So, the questions are written out like its an IQ test/CAT test - multiple choice, giving you every single answer right in front of you - not allowing you think about what you learnt, not even allowing you to remember what you were taught to repeat (which is done mostly now instead of teaching ).

And the Equations, when I finally came to them, they were given to you, theory's given, nothing be learnt .

Why doesn't the GCSE exams just involve a book of answers and have done with it

you come to a question and for the life you , you cant remember it - but these kids might as well just do a year of GCSEs instead of two because they don't need to do much do they - kids are not going to come out feeling like they have done well becasue you can then give them a real paper and see how clever they are then - not very .

Ceda, Blackburn, Lancashire

The government has registered that they are more trusted on education than the Tories so they will continue dumbing down and never admitting it because they reckon it has worked so far so why change?

R Mason, London, UK

Could someone please explain question 34 for me - not matter how hard I try I cannot get 56,000s as an answer and I feel stupid as I did A-level physics...

Right: Speed = Distance/time so time= distance/speed.
Time = (6370km x 2) / 10km/s
Time - 1274s

Help me? Please?

Emma, Hastings, UK

That physics test was rediculously easy. This material should be late elementary school/junior high level.

You Brits are really letting your standards fall.

Kira, San Diego, United States

The lack of clarity in some of these questions is appalling. Stop worrying about making exams easier or harder for the moment and try designing appropriate questions. Including a single correct answer within the multiple choices is always a good start.

Physicist, Leeds,

Interesting this examiner thinks only ultraviolet light damages eyes and causes skin cancer, methinks a spell in front of a gamma source might enlighten them. X-rays will do the same, not sure if microwaves causes skin cancer, but damage the eyes certainly. There is only one answer to this paper: Sack the person who set it! This paper actually tests very little Physics knowledge, even where they've managed to get the answers correct.

Stephen, St. Ives, England

many of he answers shown here are plain wrong. This paper seems to assume that the children have been taught Bad Science. The Veil on the moon question is appauling, and the didgital and analogue signals question is also wrong. I work in the data communications industry and can assure you that the answer should be increased bandwidth, which for some reason does not even appear as an option. This explains to me quite clearly why we see such poor standards from our young recruits at work. We are crying out for engineers, but with standards this low we have no chance.

James, Brighton,

Farcical.

I did O level Physics 20 years ago and got a C - I'd have got an A* taking this "exam".

NuLab "inclusive" dumbing down will sound the death knell of this countries future research and development prospects.

Shame on them

Trevor, Aix-on-Provence,

I can't quite believe this paper is real. The foundation level questions are absurdly easy, and there appear to be a number of errors: q. 19 - advantages of digital over analogue radio. The answer states that digital radio is faster. All radio waves travel at the speed of light, and digital radio takes longer to compress for transmission, so this is clearly incorrect. q. 34 John in London is quite right - the correct answer is not shown. According to the answer given the distance to the centre of the earth is 56,000 x 10 / 2 = 280,000km. On the graph the distance is given as 6,370km, which gives an answer of 1,274s. q. 39 Answer A is correct, not answer D - this is just common sense.

Graham, London,

When I was at school in the 80s this was 1st and 2nd year material, even the more difficult questions. Q19 - none of the answers are correct. They probably mean B to be the right answer (though it would not be true). The answer is certainly not A, as radio waves travel at the speed of light.

Rich, Ascot,

Chris From Lichfield is absolutely right the answer to Q3 is D and not C.

TQ, Liverpool,

Well, I got them all right except I fell for the trick (was it?) question Q34, missing the distinction between 'centre' and 'core'.
Words fail me for Question 3.
What on earth is iris identification (Q6 and Q7) doing in a physics paper? Perhaps there should also have been a bonus extra
Q7a An ID card contains a
(A) chip
(B) lifetime of freedom and happiness
(C) pair of old socks
(D) haddock
The correct answer to Q8 is *all of them*, depending on exposure. I knew the answer they wanted, but that's not really the point.
I agree with others on Q11 which I think ought to be A.
Q19 and Q20 have some rather dangerously unqualified generalisations about digital versus analogue signals.
And why in god's name is a calculator listed as one of the required items? Is there a second paper for the same sitting that we haven't seen here?

Henrietta W, London, UK

surely question 3 answer is D not C the table above shows the answer for you??

Andrew Penn, Nottingham, UK

No wonder science education is in a dire state, if this is the quality of the questions...

For reference, I scored 83% & 75% on the foundation & higher respectively (the loss of points primarily because I spent exactly 10 minutes both taking the full 40 questions AND "marking" them... i.e. I misread a few...

However:
Q5: This question is an total waste of space. The answer is also nonsense (you'd be better off observing through a telescope & calculating the positions of Sun, Moon and Earth with respect to each other - saves all that tedious mucking about in space...

Q8: Could be any of A, B, C or D... another stupid question.

Q10: Rubbish: Jupiter is a relatively hot body, due to internally-generated heat (gravity & tidal effects)

Q18: You can't measure ANY aspect of a sound wave with a metre rule - you can't see them for goodness sakes!

Q19: Actually, analogue signals can carry a near-infinite amount of information, unlike digital.

I'd go on, but I've run out of

Ade, Wallasey, UK

At age 77 I still know very little about science, but read extensively elsewhere. I was chuntering on about grade inflation in 1993, let alone 2007. Actually the questions were harder than I expected. For what it's worth I scored 27. One never seems to see, by the way, what is actually expected at age 7 or 10, or whenever. Teachers like big barriers between themselves and the public.

james alan sutherland, mon,

Jim Sinclair director of JCQ says: "The changes amount to a raising, not a lowering of the bar" and this sample paper is an example of questions before the changes take place!

Stephen, St. Ives, England

I have to agree with most of the above comments. GCSE's it seems , like Standard Grade up here, are all about memorizing little pieces of trivia, masked by waffling in the question. I'm just finishing a Masters in Economics and out of interest had a look at A-Level Economics papers, much like the above they taught nothing of the core principles of the subject and instead had cadidates writing essays on things completely unrelated, the mathematical element seemed to be non-existant.
I think this is the biggest concern for our generation, we need to put right what our parents generation have ruined. Britains education in the 50's and 60's was world renowned, the creme de la creme. In todays modern world thats all our nation has is a 'reputation', thankfully foreign employers are unaware of the scant content of our high school education but its only a matter of time until we are surpased by nations who haven't let psuedo-feminist, PC, rhetoric thinking impinge on our childrens learning.

Stu. R, Edinburgh,

The Pass mark for A* to A grade is extremely high. The exam is also designed (if you read the instructions) for you to only answer a certain number of questions in only 20 minutes (the questions tend to get harder as you go through the paper).
I think it is an insult to the students who are taking these exams for them to be mocked in this way. Students often work hard to achieve the results that they do.
This exam is also aimed at all students, whilst I admit is not sufficiently challenging for the top end of academic spectrucm (no pun intended) it is definetely appropriate for most 14 year olds.
Once these exams are over the students move on to harder work and harder exams if they succede at this level. The new GCSE system, allthough it has its teething problems is an improvement as it states that students achieving a level 6 or above in their SATS (year 9 exams) are entitled to study triple award GCSEs - The content in these exams goes way beyond the "old GCSEs".

Alan Forster, Huntingdon, UK

That exam is simply stupid. Even the first question is wrong, as none of the answers is correct. Of course, it should ask "Which of these more nearly shows the orbit of a moon?" but, with neither a planet marked on the diagram nor the correct track of a moon through space shewn, the standard of the examiners must surely be G-.

Theo, Manchester, England

Don't forget that they also adjust the percentages to make the vast amount of people who get a % range the acerage score (IE c). For example, they may base 20% f, 30% e, 40%d, 50% c, 60% b and 70% a. Yet if a vast majority of people get 30-40%, they will adjust this range for the C instead of the 50%. So, GCSE's are worthless if you are comparing people from two different years because they may have been assessed by different standards.

Example, who would you hire, 5 C's in 2004 or 6C's in 2008? Which would have been harder to get?

Sean, Newark Notts,

Not only does an exam writer need to know the subject as readers pointed out above, or is it below, but also how to write questions. There is an art to writing a question in such a way that the test-taker will understand what you are intending to ask. This applies to whatever subject. The examiner fell down on the writing job as well as, apparently, on the physics job. I agree with the other arts respondents - I was not let study physics as my grasp of higher maths was not strong enough, but even on the more difficult section I could comprehend the information provided. Not a good sign. Thanks to the physicists for mentioning that there really is such a thing as a blue star.

another 20th century student, NY, US

Even more horrific than having a look at a recent A level paper.
Firstly, I scored 39/40 in 12 minutes. That should be impossible on any reasonable exam and shows that none of the questions require any thought, or checking, or calculation.
Secondly, the level is trivial. Ignoring the 'old lady' and 'eye recognition at airports' as having no relevance at all, even the questions to do with physics are - I'm lost for a phrase here - as shallow as a puddle. 'Passing' this exam would be possible with, as others have said, no knowledge of the content and a bit of common sense.
Thirdly, some of the answers are factually wrong (40, depending on where R is exactly), and some are badly defined to have more than one correct answer (11, 20, 30, 35, for instance), which suggests that the examiners are incompetent fools. That sounds about right.
Lastly - Easier? EASIER??? Surely not. A paper easier than this would be GCSE 'Pin the tail on the donkey', certainly nothing to do with physics.

John Lawrence-Curran, Vezelay, France

The JCQ may not be a complete ship of fools as they at least recognise that there is a problem. Kids have not become dumb; on the contrary, they are as bright as ever. The real issue is that a career in science, which requires a lot of effort and discipline, is financially unsatisfactory. A fresh business school graduate, after relatively little effort, is virtually assured of financial independence, while a newly minted PhD in one of the hard sciences can expect to earn a measly 18k at the nation's top university, after years of hard study. That same top university has more than 60% of the student body from outside Britain. This implies that our society has a deep-seated contempt towards science, despite it being responsible for most of our material wellbeing of the past two centuries. There must be a fundamental stupidity on behalf of government and anyone who is supposed to steer this country strategically. These plans are part of a long-term trend towards intellectual castration.

Tsai Chi, Cambridge,

Question A : - How many fingers do you have?
Question B : - How many toes do you have?

Correct Answer =

'A' in Biology, Chemistry and Physics!

Judy , Liverpool, england

I have a degree in Physics, and took A level Physics in about 1964. I'm afraid that I simply don't recognize this as a Physics exam at all.
Physics involves knowing some of the basic laws of the Universe and being able to carry out either calculations or proofs that relate to them.
This "exam" is more like a general knowledge quiz, where success or failure depends on producing memorized "facts". Anyone who had a retentive memory could pass this exam without knowing any Physics, and someone with a rather deep knowledge of Physics could fail this exam by not having memorized the required facts.
Physics is about understanding, not about the memorization of facts.
I think that the main goal in the design of this exam was to make grading easier. All an examiner has to do is to compare the penciled in choices with a master key.
So what are we left with? An exam that can be passed by someone who knows no Physics, which can be graded by someone who knows no Physics.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US

The real way to get people to take physics/science is to inspire them with interesting teaching and practical experiments. During an experiment one of my teachers once crushed a 4 litre metal oil can containing very hot -water by doing as little as throwing some cold water over the outside of the oil can. It was pretty cool watching it crumple in on itself and inspired me to want to learn why that had happened. The Health and Safety Executive killjoys probably would n't allow such things these days though.

Adam, Chadderton, Uk

This is APPALLING! I'm not talking about "dumbing down". I know the subject matter inside out, but looking at that paper gives me "brain pain". Most of it is "encycopaedia" knowledge, and the bit related to Newton's Laws is more like applied maths (Abscheuliches Lehrfach / Asignatura odiosa!). Hardly any real physics there at all!

Robert H. Olley, Reading, Berks, UK

I believe that a valid point has been made by the subscribers to this item. I am apalled at the ridiculous nature and format of this examination paper. It is obvious that the government, examination boards, schools and parents are only bothered about the key statistics of 5 C grades and above. Schools will elect to go with whichever examination board will provide the easiest route to league-chart success. Sound education, understanding and the ability to reason, real achievement, the future of engineering, science and technology in Britain come a very poor second. When employers and colleges lose their respect for school qualifications the efforts of the kids, no matter how good, are wasted. I challenge any examination board or politician to defend (in this forum) this dumbing-further-down move!

R Bingham, Lauzun, France

I don't believe it! For several of those questions (i.e. the ones where you need more than an ounce of common sense to see the answer in 1/2 a second) they TELL YOU HOW TO WORK OUT THE ANSWER!

Presumably the new 'easier' papers will cut out the middle man and simply GIVE you the correct answer.

Pathetic.

And yet the masses will probably go to the Polls and vote for Brown to perpetuate this madness.

Jon Leigh, Southern, France

I took Physics in the American public school system 8 years ago, and found this to be nothing like the course I took. I do not know what eye identification has to do with Physics, and we never studied black matter or the behavior of longitudinal vs transverse waves through the Earth. We also didn't cover anything having to do with the color of stars. So I found it interesting that, even though I never studied a good percentage of the subjects tested, I still passed the test.

I am completely shocked at how easy this test was. The first 24 questions had very little scientific merit to them, and the last 24 practically gave the answers away in many cases. Shame on the politicians for thinking they can make scientists out of students who obviously know so little about science.

Lea, Atlanta, GA, USA

Well, as a student who has taken one module of each of her sciences, I'm glad people can see how ridiculious some of these questions are.
In mock module exams, my friends and I have proven the biology, physics and chemistry mark schemes wrong, if 15 year olds can prove a mark scheme wrong, it makes you question the papers aswell.
Our teachers were appauled and agreed with our answers, and said "sadly the mark scheme is what markers have to go by."
But those marks to us can mean a huge difference in grades to us, and effect our potential career choices.
Also what is frustrating, is that due to questions being so vague in Physics, an A* can be as low as 28/45 where as in Chemistry that is a a C grade, makes you wonder doesn't it?

Fran Quinn-Thomas, Chester,

I asked my son to have a go at this exam. He's not even 11 years old for another month. He's a bright boy but obviously has never studied physics yet. Nevertheless, by guessing - educated guesses and otherwise - he still managed to answer 21/40 - just over 50%.

If this exam is typical of GCSEs, I'm not surprised at the plethora of A and A* grades. Even total guesswork on the multiple choice must guarantee at least a C!

Catherine Webster, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire

It seems to me somebody is having a laugh here. If this is for real, I feel sorry for the students who have to answer these questions in an exam environment. I think the people who created these question need to go back to school! Question 35 made me laugh as all the answers in the multiple choice selection could be correct. Come Mr. editor, you are pulling our legs here?

Dom, Cambridge, UK

Looking at the questions, I was remindered of a lecturer at the university where I studied computing who said that he did not want to teach neural networks as it would be explained in Scientfic American. The articles in Scientfic American may be simplified, but at least they are to do with science not with general knowledge as most of these questions are.

Thomas Kember, Faversham, Kent

Being a teacher of Physics and having pupils who sit these exams I must say that there are flaws with these exams. The first is the timing, 20 mins is not long enough to give considered responses. The second is the ambiguous nature of many of these questions as pointed out above.

I put these questions to one of the Edexcel senior examiners as they are issues that have upset my pupils. His reply was "Don't worry the grade boundaries will balance out these problems and your pupils will still get their grades"? Is this really the attitude that is needed to improve the educational standards in our subject?

The subject is difficult when compared to all other subjects so I would suggest we need to compare all subject grade percentages to see what is too easy rather that faulting the sciences.

stephen kelly, wimbledon, UK

That exam paper is far far easier than any I have ever taken, I doubt its even SAT standard (13 yr olds). As usual the media are choosing ridiculous questions to back up stories that are already far blown over.

This is not to say I agree with the easier questions, I don't. The gap from GCSE to A-level is already huge, and a lot of people in my physics class did struggle a lot. So downgrading the GCSE further is only going to widen this gap. A reform is needed, but not this one.

Perhaps more emphasis on the science teaching? More hours per week from an early age. Also making everyone do science at GCSE is a bad idea I reckon, because if the only thing you want to do is be a hairdresser, then learning the chemical structure of Iodine will just bore you, and you'll end up distracting those around you also.

Just my 2 cents :-)

James C, Liverpool, UK

That exam shown is a disgrace. It is simple beyond belief.
I'm stunned. They want to make this even easier! Remarkable. Why bother even taking this exam. Pointless.
Why not challenge the students instead?

Gazzer, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Fully agree with Kevin of WI who commented about reasoning v understanding.

Many of the questions naturally help one to answer the Q correctly with a modicum of understanding by simple elimination of the implausible. As a graduate engineer I scored 83% for the duffers and 70% for the intellectual elite despite that I have never been taught many of the topics subjected to this examination.

For me, fundamental to a grounding in science is a general knowledge of the pivotal works of Newton, Ohm, Faraday, Charles, Boyle, Pascal, Archimedes, Lenz, Bernoulli etc. Apart from Newton, with a simple equation explictly stated, there is no evidence, by the very nature of the questions, of the input of work from these scientists.

Mark Smith, Portsmouth, UK

All of you who say Q3 is wrong - your wrong. Visible light is between micro and ultraviolet, just because infrared is also doesn't alter the fact, it's a trick question & requires careful reading. The chart clearly shows where visible light falls and there is only one correct answer, the question didn't state "just between" now did it?

I missed 10 questions because I don't know do-do about earthquakes and too many years since I've done weight/mass conversions (I also am middle of last century educated).

I've always look at tests as an indication of what I need to review. Politicians want to use test scores for everything in the world except what they were really meant to do.

Math & Physics need to be taught on two levels: 1) Simplified yet functional for the Liberal Arts minded and, 2) Complex & advanced for the math & science minded.

Adults have differing abilities because children are born with differing abilities. Education needs to address this fact - the world over.

DanO, Mount Vernon, USA

It is a disgrace that these exams are being made easier, yet again. I completed my GCSEs in 2003, and we completed mock questions in the lead up to the exams from 1999, 2000, and even then you could tell that the 2003 paper was easier. My AS-Level Business course was a joke, that was 2005, and was easier than my GNVQ Business (whatever that has done for me I do not know) which was in 2003 also.

Not every is equal. Some people are going to fail their exams. That is life. A pyramid society works. Once this obsession, which begins with parents cuddling their child after every scrape, of love and affection is weaned out of the children currently sitting in Westminster, then all the better for everyone.

Some people will fail. Some will ace it. That is the way it should be. To the government: Stop streamlining everyone into the "middle intelligence band". There's not enough room in council offices to have all roadsweepers with a degree and fififteen GCSE A* grades.

Daniel Scullane, Bath, Somerset

Q34, again.

The earth's equatorial radius is 6378km (so 6380 would be a better approximation), not 2800km as has been point out elsewhere. Therefore, the total distance travelled is 12740km (seismic wave in question starts at a depth of 0km, passes through the centre and carries on to the opposite surface). At 10 kms-1 this will take 1274 seconds?

I'm obviously too thick for this test?

Joh Kelly, ayr,

If only I could trust newspapers to tell me the truth. We only have the journalists word in interpreting what "low demand questions" means so it would be helpful to see the full relevant copy and the context in which it was written. Low demand could equally mean low demand on examiners making the exam more profitable for the exam board. MCQ doesn't mean easier unless MCQ questions are deliberately set easier. The MCQ in GP Membership Exams has been shown to be the best predictor of ability.
Thanks to Andrew Power for showing how exam papers need piloting among people who actually know the subject before releasing them on teenagers.

BernieB, Southampton, UK

Questions 7 and 8 are not physics questions. Question 7 is on biology and 8 is on general knowledge.

P.S. what is the opposite of 'dumbing down'? Nobody knows? I thought not.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Question 30 is just wrong - there's no origin that anything is moving away from. Also the vacuum of space is moving as well, so B is just as valid an answer as A.

Question 33 is really not understood. It currently looks like the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion. The role that dark matter plays is really not clear.

(Yes, I am an astrophysicist)

John Flux, Brighton, UK

The grading system is very much like Spinal Tap's amplifiers that went up to eleven, when all the others only went up to ten.


i.e. Completely meaningless and completely worthless. This is extremely depressing nonsense.

John, Southampton, U.K.

I always wondered why I had to teach most of the technicians who worked for me basic physics - now I know why! Also, in addition to all the wrong answers already identified by other correspondents, the answer to Q19 is also wrong. Analogue signals do not travel slower than digital. In all cases, in order to be broadcast or recorded the original sound waves have to be converted into an electrical analogue by means of a transducer such as a microphone. Once the signals are in an electrical form, both the analogue version and the digital version travel at the same speed! Oh dear, is this REALLY the state of science education? No wonder people readily accept New Age nonsense, astrology, magic, para-normal et al. Yet another example of New Labour's attempts at reducing us all to the same level of mediocrity - or in this case stupidity!

Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland

Part of the problem might be the letter from Teacher, england who has not learned where capital letters are supposed to be placed.
Re science. Do not teach it. If this is done it might be a good idea to teach Mandarin. Some of my friends children are learning this in High School. Usually the girls, and they are doing very well.!

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

Back in 1989 I scraped a D for my physics GCSE after 2 years of studying the subject - today I scored 84% having not been anywhere near physics (or anything else science related) since then!

I think that says it all, but what's question 5 all about?

Hannah Bloomfield, St Albans, UK, Hertfordshire

I'm concerned that Ralph, K.L. passed this test with flying colours.
3 is D, not C.
11 is A, not D. Our yellow star will swell red then collapse as a white dwarf, but it is not big enough to be a hot blue star. The colour of a star is also dependent on size, not stage.
19 is B not A. The speed of all electromagnetic waves is the same. Even if digital signals travelled faster, how does getting your radio programme 1 second earlier benefit anyone?
34 the answer is 1,274s if the wave travels directly to the centre, and any value you like by another route. None of the answers given is even close!
39 is A, not D. Just plain wrong.
And as for question 5...!
So who gave The Times the answers to this, and what did they get in their Physics exam? Or can someone explain them to me?

Jon, Winchester,

Having never studied physics at school or elsewhere (my only science knowledge is Biology `O' level , a long time ago) ;I approached this paper just to see what it was all about. To my amazement I was able to correctly answer 23 questions in 20 mins.
This is a sad reflection on the dumming down of standards - really i shouldnt be able to answer any!

Pamela Cook, Droxford. Southampton, Hants.

In Q19 the answer is wrong digital signals do not travel faster than analog they are both transmitted through radio waves therefore both travel at the same speed.

Jon, Benson, UK

If this article and the accompanying "exam" paper had appeared on 1st April, I'd be thinking, "Come on, nobody is going to fall for that!"

I can't believe it's not a joke.

Paul Beardsley, Havant, England

Having a physics degree (from Australia). I thought i would have a go at the sample GCSE exam paper. But I'm shocked at the obscurity of the questions.

I would say they are poorly designed, and I would expect to find that type of exam in a general primary school setting.
No wonder students are confused when questions mention myths such as a lady with a cloak.
If this is the level of education students are getting than its amazing that this country hasn't collapsed completely.

zyl, peterborough, cambridgeshire

Having looked at this exam, I find it almost scarily easy. This is not exams as I took them at secondary school. I knew that the rot had set in when calculus was taken off the "O" level syllabus. One cannot do (what I took as) "A" level physics without basic calculus.

The universities cannot be expected to teach undergraduate level science and engineering if this is taken as an appropriate level for GCSE. Making it easier to raise apparent level of achievement is crazy.

Christine Brooks, Burnley, Lancashire.

At GCSE you never get a choice of what paper you take, whether it be the higher tier or lower tier, you are stuck with it. Where as the different tiers are taken in different ways at different schools. A lower tier at one school can be divided up into - exams after each topic, or exams at the end of the year and both divisions come out with different grades (modules coming out with better grades) and of course the same with higher tier, where other schools do it so that higher is done in modules and lower is done at the end of the year - in both cases, the exams are not going to be made easier - the movement just have to set a standard. they have to set out exactly how the exams are supposed to be done, and how it is taught, instead of making questions easier - ludicrous.

Ceda, Blackburn, Lancashire

While I understand the psychological aspect of reward for work, I also know that if you measure something and you want it to be 3 feet and it's 4, when you change the length of an inch to be 4/3 as long, and find that it now measures up to 3 feet, you should not be surprised, nor should you conclude that what you are measuring has grown any shorter.

Many (most) of those questions don't require science at all - but basic reasoning. Some of those questions don't even have a correct answer listed in the choices - I can tell which answer I'm supposed to pick, but I know that it's scientifically (or just logically) wrong. For example, they want you to put that a digital signal can carry more information than an analog signal - but that's inherently false: Digital circuits are made out of analog parts - therefore, at best they can carry as much information as analog circuits, because they ARE analog circuits - just a special case thereof. Basic reasoning.

Kevin, Milwaukee, WI

I think you are all missing the point. If you can put your mark against one of the options provided it shows that you can read. That must be worth a B grade already.

Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England

The answer to 19 is surely not A (digital radio waves travel faster than analogue?)... A truly awful question this one.

On 34, the misunderstanding is to the core (surface), not the centre of the earth (a mistake I originally made). It then becomes travelling 2800 km and back at 10 km/s (5600/10) = 560 s so the answer is B NOT D.

3 looks like it's been corrected to D.

I could criticise quite a few of the questions as being misleading to some degree (e.g. 1 isn't a good start as it's not stated what orbit C is revolving around - if it's revolving around another star then it's not a moon of the star shown).

My verdict? Could do better.

Andrew power (PhD Physics), London,

Now I understand why we are no longer producing enough professional engineers compared with our major industrial rivals, including China and India now! Decent engineering schools cannot possibly accept this as evidence of an understanding of physics and the laws of nature.

Tom C.Eng., Bedfordshire,

I note that someone has been correcting the erroneous answers..? The answer to 11 is contentious as a star such as our sun will effectively go yellow-red (giant)-white (dwarf) over its entire life and will not go through a blue phase as it's not massive enough so the (certainly a) correct answer is A.

Andrew (PhD Physics), London,

I had a look just for fun, I was amazed some of the questions were an insult to common sense. [ old woman on moon!].Now although over 70, I have never really studied Eathquakes, but could guess sone of the answers by seeing that the maths would only work with certain figures. The astronomy was easy!
It is all so stupid I think that the chance of the UK producing future Nobel prize winners is minimal.

DAVID VINTER, LOUTH, LINCS., UK.

Apparently the Big Bang now has an origin (Q30). We are all the origin. Think of it this way: Take a deflated balloon. Put a bunch of dots on it with a marker. Each of those dots is a galaxy. The surface the balloon is our universe. Now blow up the balloon. All the galaxies move away from ALL THE OTHER GALAXIES. They are not moving away from any origin on the surface of the balloon (ie, in the whole universe). Sure, they are moving away from the inside space of the balloon, but that inside is not in our universe. Our universe has no center, and no edge.

Brian, Akron, Ohio, USA

Is there anyone who does not believe that there is dumbing down?

Ian Burgess, Bristol,

Science is a way to study the patterns found in nature. The "complications" of science merely reflect the unfortunate fact that nature utilizes so many totally unnecessary complications. It seems clear that by far the most effective way to make science easier will be to wean Mother Nature from her far too liberal use of needless complexities. Let's start by passing laws (perhaps initially it will only be at the city/town level) to force pi to be equal to three without all those intimidating extra digits.

Of course pi is merely the obvious place to start and there will still be far more work to be done, but eventually this program to purge frivolous complications from nature will insure that more students "can come out of the exam with a feeling of success that they have actually tackled a significant proportion of the questions, and achieved the best grade expected."

John Schultz, Moretown, Vermont, USA

its so easy... i cant believe that they are calling for easier tests!!

hasan, Cambridge, uk

I was so bad at physics that I was not allowed to take an 'o' level in the subject.

I took the first part of this test (foundation - nos. 1-24) and got 19 correct. I have no knowlege of physics at all.

Other parts of the exam are probably more difficult.

D. M. , Edinburgh,

I did the whole test and found the questions getting significantly more difficult as it progressed. I was disappointed to find that I only got 34 out of 40, but have no shame in stating the questions I got wrong (3, 19, 36, 37, 39, 40). I didn't know the answers and would imaging that a better student probably would. I feel I would only be in a position to criticise if I got all questions correct.

So the test is probably difficult enough and a good measure of a students understanding of science.

(Having said that, the answer to question 3 is most definitely "D". And it may just be a dullard speaking, but there appears to be a contradiction in the answers given in 37 and 40. If 37 is C, surely 40 must be B? I'd love an explanation!)

B Ewind, Cambridge, UK

Will India and China make their science examinations easier ?
I think not. Everybody getting high grades in exams, does not translate into a country producing top science and engineering minds. Life requires effort and hard work.

mark, bristol,

I can't help thinking that JCQ is mixing up cause and effect. Surely the problem is not that examinations are too hard, and thus put off some who might otherwise consider science as an educational or career path, but rather that we do not have enough good (and inspiring) teachers of science subjects in our schools.
If a child is inspired by a good teacher who clearly knows their subject, they are more likely to do well at that subject (assuming that they have some ability).
So if we can't get enough good science teachers, perhaps we ought to do what is done elsewhere in the economy and turn to market forces. Pay more to get good teachers! There are plenty of graduates with History or English degrees who go into teaching because there is nothing else for them to do. A good science graduate can get very well paid jobs elsewhere, so most do. If we (as a country) recognised how important the teaching of science is, we would fund it properly.

Andrew Jackson, Birmingham, UK

It is true that if this country continues to 'dumb-down' and take the percieved easier route to success, that future generations will need to look overseas for top quality talent. Looking at the sample exam paper, most of the first half reads like a story or general knowledge exam rather than physics. Private shcools which select the hardest exam boards may risk pooer marks, but as I found when I went to university, my knowledge was in excess of friends who sat 'easier' exams for the same course and got better grades. Yet another example of the government morgaging our future for short-term gain.

Kieran Charles-Neale, Somerset,

I took Physics in 1967 and scraped through with a D at GCE. Physics was required so that I could get an apprenticeship, as was Maths, English and one other science (Chemistry). I got what I needed and progressed from there. These questions are just so easy, even for me now. And Chris is right too I think. The answer to 3 cannot be C. Not that I am biased as he is just down the road.

Alan, Lichfield,

Govenments in power are not going to want a downtown in exam results. If exams were like they were 10-15 years ago, it would show the true state of british education.
It would also give a more accurate picture than the army of offsted inspectors who turn up to schools that have known they are coming for a year before.

Teacher, england,

Oh the irony! Not a week has gone by since the annual round of 'dumbing-down vs better teaching' arguments in the wake of this year's GCSE results, and now this?

Physics is meant to be hard! That is where it's value lies. Any attempt to make what must be one of the softest exam papers I have ever seen even more idiot-proof will only lead to further devaluation, to the point of irrelevance.

Making 'exams more accessible to candidates' is nonsense. It is in the nature of exams that those not up to taking them will fail. You don't lower the standards just so that more students ' can come out of the exam with a feeling of success'! It's no wonder Universities are having to introduce remedial maths courses for new under-graduates?

Neil Barber, Leeds, West Yorkshire

I got 33/40 (I last did O level physics in 1976). What's the grading scheme for this exam - I'd love to know if I could improve on a 1976 grade B O level with a 30 year gap and no coaching or study!
I'm sure the 70s O level was much more difficult.

paul , sheffield, UK

I have just taken the test and cannot believe some of the questions - they are so abstract and obscure and some are plain wrong:- I also don't believe anyone could have found them a doddle. Innapropriate, yes, too easy, yes. But I don't believe anyone could answer all the questions as per your answers.
Q3. visible light is between...
Q5. The moon & the old lady... hopelessly wrong
Q19. Digital signals travel faster than alalogue ones? That's why we use them in radio broadcasts? Get real. I'm a broadcast engineer and got that one wrong!
Are you sure the answers are printed correctly?

Simon, Cornwall, uk

'Reforms' have smashed the UK state Physics teaching system: school Physcis departments have been destroyed; University training departments destroyed (Goronwy Jones, Cardiff). Imagine a sledgehammer blow to a precious artefact: Destruction! The consequences for British Science and Engineering? The economy? Already becoming apparent. We are entering a new dark age. The politicians, the quangos, have drained the lifeblood from our system. Bright kids looking for excitement and challenge from their Physics lessons have little chance to develop their potential if following the UK national curriculum. Particularly so if taught by a non specialist. The architects of this disaster lack the integrity to accept responsibility for the disaster which they have wrought. Those of us who opposed the insanity look on in sorrow.

Geoff Sargent, Cardiff, UK

I did mine 7 years ago now and the paper seems very similar to then as I studied the Edexcel syllabus. You say that the paper is easy but when you are 16 and have to learn two years work for 10 different subjects you will not find it easy.

One of the reasons it seems easy now is because we have a greater understanding of the world at our current age then we did then. That paper was easy for me but that is because I have a keen interest in sciences and have earned a masters in engineering.

The jump from GCSE to A Level is difficult but not as bad as when you go to university as you are on your own then and no one is pushing you to study.

Reems, Middx, UK

I am shocked by how well you can do without any real understanding of anything.

If this is to happen then surely the school leaving age can also be lowered to 10 for the majority. The tax payer could save a lot of money.

Apart from the shallowness of multiple choice, things have changed greatly since my 'O' level physics in 1967. Apparently digital radio signals now travel faster than analogue. There's progress I suppose.

Will you be publishing a physics paper from the sixties for us to attempt?

Ray Warren, Dartmouth,

Can I just ask what exactly question 1 is trying to show? It says the orbit of a moon, it has a star on the left though and it looks it shows that either the star is moving round the path or what ever orbits round the path passes very close to the star and extremely far away too.

If I was faced with the question I would ask for some serious clarification on it.

Mark P, Manchester,

This is worryingly simple - and the governmant say that exams are not getting easier?

I agree that the answer to Q3 is dubious, in fact it is wrong as visible light is clearly not between Microwaves and IR.

Also, Q39 is ambiguous; even if one circle did not pass through the other station, the fact is that 2 distance measurements don't give a single point reference and so the position of the quake cannot be certain. Even a 3rd distance measurement would not give certainty, but rather a goose egg of probability.

I must be missing a simple piece of maths at Q34 too.

Speed = d/t

hence t = d/s

The core is 2800km down, so the wave travels 5600km there and back;

hence t = 5600km/ 10km/s
t = 560 seconds, not 56000seconds as given in the answer sheet?

At the end of this paper I would not feel I knew anything about Physics - just that I could reason an answer from a set of info given to me in the question paper.

GH, Cirencester, England

I'm sorry but reading this it seemed to be a reading test as opposed to a physics test and they want to make it easier?
First of all is it possible and second they already seem to be leading the children to the answers, wasn't the reason for education to teach the children how to think?

Thank god I live in Ireland, our education system isn't quite as mad.

Aoife, cork, irl

Well i got 39 in 14 minutes in the office whilst trying to look like I am working (Assuming that the answer given to 3 is wrong!!!).

This is laughable and pathetic. They want to make it EASIER?? I despair.

Interesting that the syllabus has changed though, we didn't do earthquakes at school, at least that's a bit more engaging (??).

Jon Cooper, Herts, UK

Question 30 is wrong. There is no "origin" of the Big Bang, as the whole universe was contained in it.

Herbert, St Andrews, UK

What a lot of nonsense! I did my "O" level GCE in physics(and 9 other subjects) in 1960 (that''s right, in the middle of the "last century"). I still have my June 1960 exam papers which I have just looked up (my wife tells me I keep far too much junk). If what is in The Times today is typical of modern "education", no wonder the UK is rapidly on the way down. Why not just give them the certificate, don't waste time on exams.

Gerry Watts, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

The answer specified for question three is patently wrong, but that's probably the fault of the journalist rather than the examining board.

The sample paper is dumbed-down already - questions five and seven are not scientific and the suggested answers spurious. Very depressing.

Joe, Leeds,

Pupils who require such simple questions in order to succeed will be confused by the unnecessry verbiage which accompanies so many of the questions - cf questions 6 & 9 where the introductory waffle is just a distraction.

Sarah E Birkin, Settle, N Yorkshire,

Half the questions on that so called 'science' paper are irrelevant trivia. "Eyes are used as identification at airports"!? I skipped to the last (and hardest?) questions 30-40. Again, all fairly easy but at least they are science questions. Which unfortunately makes me believe that any kid with a C grade or below at a GCSE knows barely anything other than trivia about science. How sad.

Pete, Bristol, UK

Well, it seems to be that the old two-tier O level / CSE was just fine and answered what they're talking about here, with brighter pupils taking O levels, suited to them, and less able pupils taking CSEs, suited to them - they scrapped that, got everyone doing the 'same' paper (I seem to remember it was then GCSE, but now we're back to calling it all O levels) and having to restructure it all to suit the lower bracket and devaluing it for the higher ones. Surely it was better to have a grade 1 or 2 CSE than a G at "O level"?!
One step forwards, two steps back. No idea whether 'dumbing down' is a reality, but they sure do seem to be making exams easier to pass, and there are those of us who are either insulted or amused to find that today's top scoring pupils feel or are told that they are superior to those of us who studied before all these changes. It just makes me glad we chose to leave the country!!

Jac, Aigues-Vives, France

The answer to 3 is D, not C.
Question 5 is stupid and contains no science, not finding coins does not preclude the 'old lady' theorem.
Question 34 doesn't contain the right answer, the correct answer is 1280 seconds, but this is not an option.
And finally, the answer to question 39 is A, not D.
Maybe people aren't doing very well at these tests because they DO know the right answers, but the examiners don't?

Andy, Reading,

That example exam is ludicrous. Even three years ago when I did Science GCSE the exam style was very different. I found it hard then to make the leap between GCSE and A-Level physics- with this kind of exam in place pupils have no chance of succeeding in science at post-GCSE level.

Daniel Churcher, Gravesend, England

I bet the Nobel thingy is a doddle compared with these GCSE papers. Thank heavens NASA didn't set up shop in the UK - they'd still be trying to recruit the old lady who covers the moon with her cloak. Mindboggling!

David Masu, Zürich,

To me it just shows how the people in charge of education in this country are simply pretty 'dumb' themselves. Anyone setting this paper and actually believing that it's challenging in any way, needs to be removed from any position in power instantly.

Thomas Murray, London,

This has been happening with all subjects, and proves that exams are easier than they used to be. Another labour fiddle to show non exsistant 'improvements'

Johnny Norfolk, Mileham Norfolk,

Talk about dumbing down, perhaps the examiners should look at question 34 again. According to my calculations none of the multiple choice answers is correct.

John, London,

Your article is disingenuous and inaccurate. Disingenuous because the increase in low demand questions affects the paper intended for students expected to gain from G to C grade, usually called the foundation tier paper. These changes have no effect on the higher tier paper targeted at D to A* candidates as these candidates are not exposed to low demand questions. Also, as clearly pointed out by Dr Sinclair the pass mark can be adjusted accordingly.
Inaccurate because as anyone who knew even basic science would know that the atomic structure of Chlorine is not more complex than magnesium and that the atomic structure of Titanium has been A level standard since I did Chemistry in the 1970’s.

paul connell, Ross-on-Wye, UK

No - Don't do it. Britian is fast lagging behind the East, this is only going to get worse if we dumb down science. Teach kids discipline and a pride in learning and maybe they will surprise us and excel, and at least there maybe be less shootings on our streets and

Ruth, London,

Are you sure the answer to 3 really is C ??

Chris, Lichfield,

I took this test and passed with flying colours.
I failed physics "O" level the first time round, taking it again and squeaking through in the November re-takes. This was in 1967 and I haven't looked at a physics book since!!
If they make this exam any easier they might as well give passes away in cereal boxes. A pathetic state of affairs, I am really glad my children are past this and had to stretch their minds at school. God help us, because it is fairly obvious that those in charge of the country's childrens' education won't.

Ralph, K.L.,

A student would have to work hard to fail the example physics paper given above. It barely qualifies as science, it's more of a test of memorizing basic trivia and some fact regurgitation. It would hardly a challenge for anyone who stays awake during class.

If this is supposed to be an example of a challenging exam, I don't see how it could be made any more simplistic. Only a true dullard would have a problem.

I don't think that test could be dumbed-down any further and still be considered a "test." As it stands, it's not much of a test of anything right now.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

The good old socialists have stuffed up children in every other department currently we have young teens shooting one another, now we are going to have a nation science illiterates.

Barry Holmes, Christchurch, New Zealand

Is this a joke? Nearly a quarter century since last looking at a GCE paper, I was expecting something that might in some small way challenge my poor old brain. The bright students must surely be comatose with boredom.

N.Salmon, Dudenhofen,

I remember the physics exams I sat in high school. They were nothung like this. I must ask in all seriousness--is this a joke? This isn't an exam. It's some man on the street questionaire!

John MacDonald, Halifax, NS, Canada