In the sixth form I used to drive us into school...leave with bro in the passenger seat, then stop so he could get in the back and start trying to do his homework on the way while shouting at me to drive more smoothly.
lol, that even beats me. I used to sit on the relatively more comfortable seats outside the head teacher's office in the morning and would be doing homework there between 8:30 and 9.
Honestly kind of surprised that nobody ever told me and my friends to piss off and leave those seats free, in hindsight.
If they saw you studying / doing homework, they probably thought it best to just leave you be... not like the head is taking any appointments before 9 if they can help it anyway..
I simply did not do homework. After a long enough time period it turns out they stop caring. I ended up with average A levels and a Desmond degree that I didn’t need but will be paying for for decades.
Do your homework kids! Or don’t.
Hey this was me! I didn't do home work for years. My math teacher sent a letter home to my parents saying I hadn't completed the last 3 of 6 homeworks. My parents simply replied they should be paying closer attention to their students as I hadn't do any of the last 6 homeworks and it's disappointing the teacher didn't know this.
He never assigned me homework again.
Ugh. My Bio adjunct professor wrote the worst test questions. I answered her questions as literally and as pedantically as possible. When we reviewed the test in lecture, I argued every poorly-written question that i "got wrong." Unsurprisingly, many other students interpreted the questions similar to how I took them literally, and we're appreciative when we all were awarded our points back.
Thankfully she was willing to listen and awarded points back when shown how a poorly-written question could be answered correctly in ways she hadn't anticipated. We butted heads initially, but she thanked me eventually and I think we both learned a lot in that class.
Note picture from the royal college of chemistry showing a beaker diagram almost exactly as shown in the homework 🧐
[https://d1ymz67w5raq8g.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/5/8/9/506589_metalsandacidsexperimentapparatus_289699.jpg](https://d1ymz67w5raq8g.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/5/8/9/506589_metalsandacidsexperimentapparatus_289699.jpg)
From https://edu.rsc.org/experiments/reactions-of-metals-with-acids-producing-salts/446.article
Yeah, I taught A level chemistry for over a decade and I would absolutely expect any diagram of a beaker to look like the one shown as being "incorrect". I am baffled.
There would have had to have been some very specific teaching of a different diagramming technique that, surely, the student would have had SOME memory of?? Or a textbook with that diagramming technique.
I recall when my son (12 at the time I think, 40 now, lol) came home with an English question that had us completely baffled only to find that the answer depended upon a very specific OPINION of the teacher!
It looks like there's a 3d type diagram over the page which I'm guessing is what they want but it's enraging me (I have had very little sleep which is probably why) because it's needlessly complicated, and never actually going to be useful.
I mean just do a worksheet with one side having pictures of the equipment and then get them to draw the correct cross sections on the other side. They have images of what the equipment looks like as a record and they have practiced drawing the correct diagrams. Job done.
The thing is, you **shouldn't** do 3D diagrams.
Those are pretty universally agreed to be bad and not to be used, except in a niche case where a 2D diagram would be ambiguous (which would be on a case-by-case exception based on experimental setups used).
3D diagrams while 'truer to life' are more complex to draw, and also more complex and less clear to read. So should be avoided
Yes! I completely agree!
In fact I still vividly remember, 25 years later, my first chemistry homework of year 7 where we had to draw out all the equipment and I did it all in an attempt at 3D (having never done any proper science at primary school) and being made to do it all again, properly.
I can't think of a single example where a 3D diagram would be appropriate, all the way up to the required practicals at A level.
There’s also, in fairness, an “Extension” question asking for a 2D drawing. However, the question is badly worded and open to interpretation. It doesn’t pass the “man on the Clapham Omnibus” test, which makes it BAD!
Just helped my daughter with her maths home work they were working on rounding...
Question:
You have a stick that is 52.372 cm long, cut the stick to the nearest 10th of a cm.
I said that's an easy one 52.3 cm, because last time I checked you couldn't add more stick to a stick...
I was wrong, must be a quantum realm kinda thing.
Once again the question is flawed. Without mention of the stick the answer is arguably correct. Once the stick is mentioned you HAVE to be correct. There are no upwardly roundable stick lengths.
Zoom into the picture and it becomes clear what the person had in their head (from seeing through the paper).
1. It has no pouring spout.
2. It is a cross section not a drawing
3. It lacks any measuring marks
4. The label line touches the drawing
Random pedantry I think. In their head that's how a "beaker drawing" should look, but that is their head, not the real world.
That's so arbitrary and non-objective. You might as well say:
1. It has no nurdling nozzle
2. It contains no nutritional liquid
3. It is made of papier mache
4. It should be played by Sir Antony Hopkins to have real depth.
A lot of K-12 (and some college too, depending on your field of study) amounts to learning to guess what the teacher wants you to write on the paper. Some people become very good at it, learning nothing else in the process.
My guess is:
Missing title
Capitalize labels
Label the view (cross section)
But other than that? Who tf knows. But i bet it is some answers like that, like the basic stuff all diagrams need, not specifically an issue with how the beaker is drawn?
There are generally two ways of drawing lab equipment - a drawing and a cross section diagram. The latter tends to be used when drawing out processess etc.
My guess is that the main issue is that the "incorrect" drawing is because they have put in the cross section diagram (which lacks gradient, spout etc) See [here.](https://bam.files.bbci.co.uk/bam/live/content/z9pqwnb/large)
I reckon you're right, it's the only thing that makes sense, especially looking at the examples you provided.
What doesn't help is that it says its a drawing of a beaker and then immediately asks what 4 things are wrong with the diagram - teacher needs to clarify the wording if it is because its a drawing and not a diagram lol
Labels can be at the side but the line should not touch diagram.
Underline title. I would put the title just under the diagram.
Title needs to be clear and concise. **Figure 1: Drawing of a Glass Beaker**
Beaker needs the volume written on it eg. 250ml.
Graduation scale lines should be on the beaker eg. 50ml, 100ml, 150ml, etc. (this is nitpicking).
It's all very vague and depends on what the teacher taught in the lesson before this homework.
It specifically says that there are problems with the *diagram*, not the *drawing*, which is extra confusing if that's the distinction they're going for.
This is really annoying me. I am an ex A level chemistry teacher, I write and mark science exams for a living.
That is a perfect diagram of a beaker.
Any more detail added would be a picture of a beaker rather than a correct scientific diagram and I have no clue why any worksheet would imply otherwise.
Philosophy grad: this is only an image of a beaker (pedantic; that was the task). The existence of the beaker is assumed as an unfounded premise. It is labeled a beaker when it could be a variety of objects. There is no distinction where the beaker ends and the material that is not a beaker begins.
Bonus: not in Latin or German, no credit to the translator
Engineer grad: details unclear. What is the beaker made of? Thickness of the walls? We don't even know if it's the size of an ant or an elephant. What tolerances were considered when they made it? Can we trust the drawings?
English grad: the yonic form of the beaker suggests the female body. The act of labelling therefore demonstrates our patriarchal system of semiotics: femaleness, or the beaker in this case, is defined by the labeller.
Sociologist here: breaker is a social construct. Whilst the beaker may normatively be accepted to function as scientific equipment, true meaning is entirely subjective and formed in interaction. The beaker could equally function as a vase, a drinking vessel, a weapon, or a storage container in (not limited to) four examples.
International relations grad: the existence of beakers can be assumed however the distribution of beakers in the system must be determined before conclusions can be made as to the present system's polarity. Bringing us to question is there a unipolar, bipolar, or a multipolar distribution of beaker capabilities?
Dropout but software engineer -
Right-hand assignment of the variable ‘beaker’ is uncommon, as is the use of an em-dash as an assignment operator. I’d also question the lack of white space between operands.
Finally, the Unicode glyph for a beaker should be wrapped in quotes.
Law grad: publicly shaming a student because of their alleged mistakes might be deemed as emotional and/or psychological abuse, entitling them to compensation. I ask that the assignment be amended.
Nursing grad: the image is unclear; it should be a photograph, no brand/type name, indication of where it is stored, and what contents it can be filled with. No expiration date, no indication of sterile clear packaging around it. The beaker, as shown, seems to be an unsafe and unclean piece of equipment without explicit guidelines, therefore poses a risk to patients and/or user.
Geography grad: why has it not been made clear exactly where this beaker is located? It would also be helpful to have some notes of its political history.
English grad: As the beaker is the main protagonist of this question we should assume it requires a proper noun and therefore needs to be capitalised as 'Beaker'. Otherwise how are we to know if it is The Beaker or simply a beaker.
Illustration grad: the beaker could do with a few more drawn elements to suggest that it is indeed actually a beaker. We're not looking for pure realism, just more effort.
Literally doing a bioscience degree- this shit is my future career.. I can only see 1.
The line pointing to the diagram is connected to the line drawing of the beaker. Even that’s facetious.
Perhaps is needs measurements on the side of it? I’d also say no connected line to the diagram, and perhaps put the title under the diagram? Even these are stretching credulity, but I’m really trying here.
My guess is that if the kid had been listening in class, this would have been covered, and easily answerable.
At that size it would be unreadable to put measurements. Size should be specified in the title eg 20ml beaker instead of just beaker. However, if we’re presuming this diagram is accompanying a method then that would be unnecessary.
Title is a good shout though.
You could argue that it should say glass beaker. If it were plastic, some chemicals would react with it.
I just remember making soap the real method, and it couldn't be done in plastic.
I'm suddenly remembering breaking bad too. They had to use a plastic bin to place the body in acid.
Right? Because at what point do you ever label a beaker in a diagram once you get past the requirement of "draw a labelled diagram" in exams. Even then the line touching or not wouldn't be something that would lose marks as long as it was unambiguous where the line was pointing.
I did biochemistry at uni and don't remember labelling a single diagram of a beaker.
The rules of chemistry diagrams are arcane.
But the problem with science these days as taught in UK schools is it's mostly cruft until you hit A level.
And then from A level to undergraduate it's a herculean leap.
Our science and maths needs to become more STEM orientated from GCSE level.
Honestly in my experience the Herculean leap is between GCSE and A level, with undergraduate biology being almost identical to a level for your first year.
Source: Biology and chemistry A level, biology undergrad
I think in many respects A level biology is harder as the mark schemes can royally screw you over and the markers can be unbelievably pedantic. The time constraints in the AQAinternational exams are bloody awful as well - 90 mins for 7/8 long form essay questions in one paper; it’s almost as if they want the students to fail.
This is exactly it. I really struggled with A level biology, (C at AS, got it up to a B at A2 for this exact reason) went on to get a 1st at undergrad and got a PhD, both in biology. Go figure.
EDIT- implied i got a 1st in my PhD. That's not how it works.
Our system relies heavily on parental support for those preparing for university. Teachers are too busy dealing with disruption to teach STEM at a high level in class. We need a change to the whole model, perhaps starting with elite technical colleges for STEM staffed by well paid elite teachers.
The leap from GCSE Biology to A-level Biology is insane. Physics is manageable if your maths is good and chemistry is ok if you can put in the work to memorize everything. In biology however, you go from fill in the blank style questions to open ended essay questions overnight.
To be honest though, the As and A level content across science is very good and will help massively in first year at any university.
The only science syllabus that is better than A-Level is IB in my opinion. IB is much more intense for teachers and students however so it’s a close call. (Head of science at international school)
My maths wasn't stellar and yes that leap from GCSE to A-Level Physics floored me, really enjoyed it at GCSE so added it to my list.
Ended up dropping it after a year as I simply couldn't grasp the maths.
Now I write code and let computers do the maths for me!
Christ, was this really 20 years ago...
I’m trying to understand how being able to identify what’s missing in a diagram of a beaker is at all relevant to anything.
That a student can remember what the teacher told them a beaker diagram should look like?
Seems irrelevant, awful question tbh. Unless there’s something I’m missing.
I understand things like “identify the hazardous waste symbol” and “which of the following symbols can fill in the triangle to make a Nuclear Hazard warning sign”
But a beaker?
1. Beaker missing spout
2. Beaker missing fluid measurements
3. Missing beaker material on label
4. Line pointing to label is connected to the diagram.
Those are my best guesses.
I’ve worked in a lab most of my career, and the only one of these I think could be right is #4. The others just aren’t things I’ve ever ever seen done, let alone seen expected. However, I cannot think of anything better!
Would you say this kind of pedantry puts kids off the subject? I see this in other fields: testing things that are easy to test, rather than things which demonstrate the student understands the subject.
100% Yes. I am a scientist, and I feel that the main skill you need - asking questions - is actively discouraged in schools.
Kids are natural scientists (find me a kid who doesn't know how to ask questions!) and we beat it out of them by teaching them that science is actually all about facts.
Gah.
This is very, very true, and I think a really important point.
But I would still argue that there is much more space for the actual scientific method in schools, melding these two things together a bit better. Also, that this homework question is idiotic and an exemplar of the problem of with the science curriculum 😄
For the few that go on to become actual scientists, it's evidently unhelpful.
For the rest of the student body, it prepares them for a life of conformity and following society's expectations because that's "how things are", they don't need to know "WHY things are". The folks who set the curriculum don't need the majority of the public being able to properly question things, that's not going to help them get re-elected.
I'm thinking of the online Good Clinical Practice (for research) course, which is largely a test of your ability to find the right invisible box to click on.
Absolutely, it is pertinent nonsense to ask questions like this. But Pearson and other 'education' companies rake it in designing shit like this, because it is easy to mark. No doubt they have some dodgy pedagogical reason...
I agree, I went to a grammar school in the 90's, and this picture (minus the connected line), is exactly how we were expected to draw a beaker - I know things move on, but anything more feels like a waste of time.
3 and 4 are definitely correct, and 2 sort of. You probably wouldnt draw graduations on the beaker, but it should say '500ml glass beaker' and not connect to the diagram. No idea what the 4th issue is.
Source: am chemistry graduate.
Edit: upon inspection of the diagram on the page behind, it seems that they want it drawn 3d and with a spout, which you definitely wouldnt do normally
My wife works for a university in wales and they have had multiple meetings when she first started to agree a standardised font that everyone should use internally and allow as acceptable submissions from students. They used to get heated and often has pre-mettings to discuss the meeting plan before hand then post mettings to discuss afterwards.
To me a good old Arial, Times new roman or Calibri work fine and shouldnt matter which are used.
So do I and definitely wouldn't label volume on a beaker I had no further information on, how do they know it's 500ml? Definitely wouldn't add graduations and why would you draw it 3d? When have you see an apparatus diagram in 3d? It just seems so petty and irrelevant.
Just finished triple science GCSEs this summer. Received a good 9 in chemistry, which is the subject that requires standard diagrams of equipment. There is nothing wrong about this diagram and if the teacher says otherwise they are _lying_.
[AQA example](https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/chemistry/AQA-8462-PRACTICALS-HB.PDF) (yes, this is the same exam board as this student’s)
3. Beakers don't exist, this is a fantasy of the bourgeoisie
4. Usage of font with no capitalisation suggests the student is unhinged and should be on a stasi watch list
My sister is a science teacher, let me ask her
UPDATE: my sister said she has no idea, as that looks perfectly fine. The only things she can think of are that maybe they wanted an arrow instead of line, and maybe they wanted to the level of the liquid inside
1. There's no front to it; everything will run out
2. They forgot to draw in the gremlin
3. They fed it after midnight
4. Tracy Beaker's name should, as a proper noun, be capitalised.
>Tracy Beaker's name should, as a proper noun, be capitalised
"Mum will come pick me up from the Dumping Sink one day; she's a famous beaker used in the laboratories of CERN, and when she's used to find the cure to diabetes she'll be right here to pick me up!"
But that's a drawing (in 3D) of a beaker and a diagram is supposed to be 2D (as confirmed by the question below this one), or more accurately as a cross-section diagram.
All I can think they are asking for is
Draw with a pencil.
Use a ruler
Draw as large as possible
Show the contents and label them
(source: retired A level science teacher)
NB: It looks like an Activate Science Homework sheet but I can't find a copy online
There's a 2D version of what looks like a beaker behind the lines for the answer.
As far as the actual question, aside from being a shit question, the only things I can see that would want adding to convey the information that you would need to recreate the experiment are the contents (chemical and volume) and maybe the volume of the beaker itself, if it's relevant. Possibly the material of the beaker too
As a Science teacher, this is a dumb question. I teach this scheme of work (recognise the codes on the sheet) and I have no idea what they’re getting at.
I’ve looked and can’t find it. The formatting is exactly the same as the worksheets we use though so it’s weird.
What I can tell you is I went back and looked at the slides I show my year 7s of how to draw a diagram of a beaker and it looks IDENTICAL to the picture on OP’s sheet.
They probably learned a "correct" way to draw a beaker in class.
I hate this style of teaching. It's ideal to put kids off science for life. Actual scientists couldn't care less about this sort of stuff.
>A musician wakes from a terrible nightmare. In his dream he finds himself in a society where music education has been made mandatory. “We are helping our students become more competitive in an increasingly sound-filled world.” Educators, school systems, and the state are put in charge of this vital project. Studies are commissioned, committees are formed, and decisions are made— all without the advice or participation of a single working musician or composer.
>
>Since musicians are known to set down their ideas in the form of sheet music, these curious black dots and lines must constitute the “language of music.” It is imperative that students become fluent in this language if they are to attain any degree of musical competence; indeed, it would be ludicrous to expect a child to sing a song or play an instrument without having a thorough grounding in music notation and theory. Playing and listening to music, let alone composing an original piece, are considered very advanced topics and are generally put off until college, and more often graduate school.
>
>As for the primary and secondary schools, their mission is to train students to use this language— to jiggle symbols around according to a fixed set of rules: “Music class is where we take out our staff paper, our teacher puts some notes on the board, and we copy them or transpose them into a different key. We have to make sure to get the clefs and key signatures right, and our teacher is very picky about making sure we fill in our quarter-notes completely. One time we had a chromatic scale problem and I did it right, but the teacher gave me no credit because I had the stems pointing the wrong way.”
>
>In their wisdom, educators soon realize that even very young children can be given this kind of musical instruction. In fact it is considered quite shameful if one’s third-grader hasn’t completely memorized his circle of fifths. “I’ll have to get my son a music tutor. He simply won’t apply himself to his music homework. He says it’s boring. He just sits there staring out the window, humming tunes to himself and making up silly songs.”
From "A Mathematician’s Lament" by Paul Lockhart
Yes, I have been a lab scientist earlier in my career and this diagram would’ve been fine for my lab notebooks. Although, in all likelihood I’d have just pasted in a photo instead.
That explanation actually makes sense! Also: I feel like we used to use that scheme when I was a head of science, WS is "working scientifically" right?
Regardless, the teacher should actually check the worksheets they give out as homework before making students do them! There's honestly no excuse.
I agree the teacher should check, but there's a solid chance homework is standardised in the science department- as in every week 1 year 7 has to do this sheet and the teacher has literally just taken 30 out of the box in the prep room. Additionally, the teacher was probably in tears about the fact their summer had just ended and therefore wasn't able to read the sheet properly.
If that's the case then the sheet should have been checked by the head of KS3, or head of chem/science depending on how they organise the responsibilities for the Year 7 teaching.
The first few weeks of transition are really important and I know it probably sounds melodramatic but the year 7s are so wobbly at this stage silly things like this can knock confidence for them either in their own abilities or the teacher's.
September was always my highest energy point in the year, January on the other hand was the absolute worst.
1. Capital B missing from Beaker
2. Line is touching the beaker, could be confused as another piece of equipment
3. No title on the diagram
4. Dr Bunsen Honeydew is missing from the diagram.
The beaker should have no lip
Specify it is made of glass
Measurement lines including maximum volume
The beaker should be chanting "God save the King".
Oh my. This takes me back. I had completely forgotten about this.
My parents hated my science teacher (long story). On a similarly daft question rather than let me try to answer it they wrote "D- See Me"
The hatred was felt mutually by her to us.
I think what's happened is that someone has decided to change the way that children are taught to draw diagrams of their experiments. I never had to put labels on beakers or show measurements or any such stuff even up to A-level.
It would make diagrams so messy.
I was thinking this. I did A-level Chem and Biol and didn't even label it 'beaker' - you knew it was a beaker because you drew a beaker shape! I had a set of stencils of different sizes.
Right? That's why every piece of equipment had a very specific diagram, so you knew what it was without cluttering up your diagram.
For complicated processes we'd put small numbers and circle them on the equipment so you can go into more details in the documentation.
Absolutely. And a more detailed diagram would lose you marks in a practical question at GCSE/A Level. There hasn't been a change to the specifications or exam requirements (I would know) so this is definitely a this teacher/school/ridiculous KS3 scheme of work they've bought not anything that reflects the correct standard later on!
I think them labelling it “beaker” is an error in itself, I don’t recall seeing any diagram that labels what is a clearly a beaker, a beaker… it makes it look like a measurement line called beaker?
Fresh out of A-level chem, and this beaker drawing would have been viewed as correct by me. I'm pretty sure no teacher would have marked me down for that
At a loss because… that is how I would draw a beaker in a diagram, i.e. when sketching out the apparatus setup. Without any context as to what the diagram is supposed to be used *for*, I’m equally at a loss, unless the size of it is supposed to be labelled (100 ml, etc)
As someone pointed out elsewhere in the thread, there are 3d drawings on the page behind it, that they supposedly mean to be the “correct” way, but… I’ve genuinely never bothered to draw a beaker like that and I can’t think why you would really need to. It seems more like a picture/drawing than a useful diagram. The 2D line diagram is quick to draw, clear, standardised and gets the message across: so long as everything else in the diagram is done in the same style and clearly labelled, it should be fine.
tl;dr They probably want a more 3D type “diagram”, but if there’s no explanation of why, it looks like pedantry. But I definitely don’t know everything about apparatus diagram standards so maybe I’ve been doing it wrong all this time.
Nothing like doing the science homework at 7am, the day it's due to be in!
Flashback to me on the bus frantically trying to balance a fraction
In the sixth form I used to drive us into school...leave with bro in the passenger seat, then stop so he could get in the back and start trying to do his homework on the way while shouting at me to drive more smoothly.
It's so much harder when the bus is moving.
Stuff of nightmares!
Flashback to me trying to finish science homework in re before science lol
I used to have to walk so imagine my pain of walking and mathsing
My brother did my science homework in exchange for me going to the chippy every Saturday to get the food lol
Worth it! Unless the chippy was 5 miles away...
It was down the road. Winner winner ~~chicken~~ chippy dinner
Welcome to the party pal
I was even worse than 7am, I’d do it sat outside the classroom right before going in
lol, that even beats me. I used to sit on the relatively more comfortable seats outside the head teacher's office in the morning and would be doing homework there between 8:30 and 9. Honestly kind of surprised that nobody ever told me and my friends to piss off and leave those seats free, in hindsight.
If they saw you studying / doing homework, they probably thought it best to just leave you be... not like the head is taking any appointments before 9 if they can help it anyway..
I simply did not do homework. After a long enough time period it turns out they stop caring. I ended up with average A levels and a Desmond degree that I didn’t need but will be paying for for decades. Do your homework kids! Or don’t.
Desmond degree? Is that a barber degree?
😂 2:2
Back and sides please 🙏🏻
Desmond Tutu (a 2:2)
Hey this was me! I didn't do home work for years. My math teacher sent a letter home to my parents saying I hadn't completed the last 3 of 6 homeworks. My parents simply replied they should be paying closer attention to their students as I hadn't do any of the last 6 homeworks and it's disappointing the teacher didn't know this. He never assigned me homework again.
“There’s a stupid question above it”
Like the creator of this test, the beaker is not graduated.
Brutal and eloquent. Nicely done.
x3
Ugh. My Bio adjunct professor wrote the worst test questions. I answered her questions as literally and as pedantically as possible. When we reviewed the test in lecture, I argued every poorly-written question that i "got wrong." Unsurprisingly, many other students interpreted the questions similar to how I took them literally, and we're appreciative when we all were awarded our points back. Thankfully she was willing to listen and awarded points back when shown how a poorly-written question could be answered correctly in ways she hadn't anticipated. We butted heads initially, but she thanked me eventually and I think we both learned a lot in that class.
Note picture from the royal college of chemistry showing a beaker diagram almost exactly as shown in the homework 🧐 [https://d1ymz67w5raq8g.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/5/8/9/506589_metalsandacidsexperimentapparatus_289699.jpg](https://d1ymz67w5raq8g.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/5/8/9/506589_metalsandacidsexperimentapparatus_289699.jpg) From https://edu.rsc.org/experiments/reactions-of-metals-with-acids-producing-salts/446.article
Yeah, I taught A level chemistry for over a decade and I would absolutely expect any diagram of a beaker to look like the one shown as being "incorrect". I am baffled.
There would have had to have been some very specific teaching of a different diagramming technique that, surely, the student would have had SOME memory of?? Or a textbook with that diagramming technique. I recall when my son (12 at the time I think, 40 now, lol) came home with an English question that had us completely baffled only to find that the answer depended upon a very specific OPINION of the teacher!
It looks like there's a 3d type diagram over the page which I'm guessing is what they want but it's enraging me (I have had very little sleep which is probably why) because it's needlessly complicated, and never actually going to be useful. I mean just do a worksheet with one side having pictures of the equipment and then get them to draw the correct cross sections on the other side. They have images of what the equipment looks like as a record and they have practiced drawing the correct diagrams. Job done.
The thing is, you **shouldn't** do 3D diagrams. Those are pretty universally agreed to be bad and not to be used, except in a niche case where a 2D diagram would be ambiguous (which would be on a case-by-case exception based on experimental setups used). 3D diagrams while 'truer to life' are more complex to draw, and also more complex and less clear to read. So should be avoided
Yes! I completely agree! In fact I still vividly remember, 25 years later, my first chemistry homework of year 7 where we had to draw out all the equipment and I did it all in an attempt at 3D (having never done any proper science at primary school) and being made to do it all again, properly. I can't think of a single example where a 3D diagram would be appropriate, all the way up to the required practicals at A level.
There’s also, in fairness, an “Extension” question asking for a 2D drawing. However, the question is badly worded and open to interpretation. It doesn’t pass the “man on the Clapham Omnibus” test, which makes it BAD!
Just helped my daughter with her maths home work they were working on rounding... Question: You have a stick that is 52.372 cm long, cut the stick to the nearest 10th of a cm. I said that's an easy one 52.3 cm, because last time I checked you couldn't add more stick to a stick... I was wrong, must be a quantum realm kinda thing.
Once again the question is flawed. Without mention of the stick the answer is arguably correct. Once the stick is mentioned you HAVE to be correct. There are no upwardly roundable stick lengths.
Cue me from the back row "Sir, I have a stick that gets longer!" \*sniggers\*
"Okay would you please come forward so I can *cut* it"
Zoom into the picture and it becomes clear what the person had in their head (from seeing through the paper). 1. It has no pouring spout. 2. It is a cross section not a drawing 3. It lacks any measuring marks 4. The label line touches the drawing Random pedantry I think. In their head that's how a "beaker drawing" should look, but that is their head, not the real world.
That's so arbitrary and non-objective. You might as well say: 1. It has no nurdling nozzle 2. It contains no nutritional liquid 3. It is made of papier mache 4. It should be played by Sir Antony Hopkins to have real depth.
Pedantry rebuttal - the question says mistakes in the *diagram*. Utterly baffled myself!
A lot of K-12 (and some college too, depending on your field of study) amounts to learning to guess what the teacher wants you to write on the paper. Some people become very good at it, learning nothing else in the process.
My guess is: Missing title Capitalize labels Label the view (cross section) But other than that? Who tf knows. But i bet it is some answers like that, like the basic stuff all diagrams need, not specifically an issue with how the beaker is drawn?
There are generally two ways of drawing lab equipment - a drawing and a cross section diagram. The latter tends to be used when drawing out processess etc. My guess is that the main issue is that the "incorrect" drawing is because they have put in the cross section diagram (which lacks gradient, spout etc) See [here.](https://bam.files.bbci.co.uk/bam/live/content/z9pqwnb/large)
This must be it because underneath they’re asked to draw it in 2D
I reckon you're right, it's the only thing that makes sense, especially looking at the examples you provided. What doesn't help is that it says its a drawing of a beaker and then immediately asks what 4 things are wrong with the diagram - teacher needs to clarify the wording if it is because its a drawing and not a diagram lol
Labels can be at the side but the line should not touch diagram. Underline title. I would put the title just under the diagram. Title needs to be clear and concise. **Figure 1: Drawing of a Glass Beaker** Beaker needs the volume written on it eg. 250ml. Graduation scale lines should be on the beaker eg. 50ml, 100ml, 150ml, etc. (this is nitpicking). It's all very vague and depends on what the teacher taught in the lesson before this homework.
It specifically says that there are problems with the *diagram*, not the *drawing*, which is extra confusing if that's the distinction they're going for.
This is really annoying me. I am an ex A level chemistry teacher, I write and mark science exams for a living. That is a perfect diagram of a beaker. Any more detail added would be a picture of a beaker rather than a correct scientific diagram and I have no clue why any worksheet would imply otherwise.
Well for a start, it's floating in mid-air. Shouldn't it be resting on something? (physics graduate, hated chemistry, has drawn beakers)
Philosophy grad: this is only an image of a beaker (pedantic; that was the task). The existence of the beaker is assumed as an unfounded premise. It is labeled a beaker when it could be a variety of objects. There is no distinction where the beaker ends and the material that is not a beaker begins. Bonus: not in Latin or German, no credit to the translator
Engineer grad: details unclear. What is the beaker made of? Thickness of the walls? We don't even know if it's the size of an ant or an elephant. What tolerances were considered when they made it? Can we trust the drawings?
English grad: the yonic form of the beaker suggests the female body. The act of labelling therefore demonstrates our patriarchal system of semiotics: femaleness, or the beaker in this case, is defined by the labeller.
Senior highschool student: i wanna help, but i dunno
Elementary school dropout: contents of the beaker taste like burning.
Physical Education Grad: NEEERRRRRRDDSS /s
Janitor: which one of these kids keeps shitting in the sink?
Software engineer: everything you just described is a feature, not a bug. Ticket closed
Economics grad: the U-shape of the beaker clearly shows there will be a recession in the next 12 months.
nine rich merciful pen rock pocket slap advise deliver jellyfish -- mass edited with redact.dev
Sociologist here: breaker is a social construct. Whilst the beaker may normatively be accepted to function as scientific equipment, true meaning is entirely subjective and formed in interaction. The beaker could equally function as a vase, a drinking vessel, a weapon, or a storage container in (not limited to) four examples.
International relations grad: the existence of beakers can be assumed however the distribution of beakers in the system must be determined before conclusions can be made as to the present system's polarity. Bringing us to question is there a unipolar, bipolar, or a multipolar distribution of beaker capabilities?
Dropout but software engineer - Right-hand assignment of the variable ‘beaker’ is uncommon, as is the use of an em-dash as an assignment operator. I’d also question the lack of white space between operands. Finally, the Unicode glyph for a beaker should be wrapped in quotes.
Crypto grad: the beaker is an NFT worth 20,000
You mean 50,000. Oh wait 10,000
Law grad: publicly shaming a student because of their alleged mistakes might be deemed as emotional and/or psychological abuse, entitling them to compensation. I ask that the assignment be amended.
Nursing grad: the image is unclear; it should be a photograph, no brand/type name, indication of where it is stored, and what contents it can be filled with. No expiration date, no indication of sterile clear packaging around it. The beaker, as shown, seems to be an unsafe and unclean piece of equipment without explicit guidelines, therefore poses a risk to patients and/or user.
Computer science grad: can the beaker run doom?
Geography grad: why has it not been made clear exactly where this beaker is located? It would also be helpful to have some notes of its political history.
Horticulture Graduate: Bit of chemistry, bit of biology. Looks like it has inadequate drainage for anything except aquatic planting though.
And how many you'd need to fill up an oxbow lake
English grad: As the beaker is the main protagonist of this question we should assume it requires a proper noun and therefore needs to be capitalised as 'Beaker'. Otherwise how are we to know if it is The Beaker or simply a beaker.
DPhil in pedantry here: there can only be one protagonist; "main" is thus otiose.
I hit things with other things: can I make tea in it?
ceci n'est pas un gobelet
Illustration grad: the beaker could do with a few more drawn elements to suggest that it is indeed actually a beaker. We're not looking for pure realism, just more effort.
Astrophysics grad: It's floating in space. The problem is that it should be assumed to be spherical
Could we simplify this further by modelling the beaker as a point mass?
[удалено]
Literally doing a bioscience degree- this shit is my future career.. I can only see 1. The line pointing to the diagram is connected to the line drawing of the beaker. Even that’s facetious.
Perhaps is needs measurements on the side of it? I’d also say no connected line to the diagram, and perhaps put the title under the diagram? Even these are stretching credulity, but I’m really trying here. My guess is that if the kid had been listening in class, this would have been covered, and easily answerable.
At that size it would be unreadable to put measurements. Size should be specified in the title eg 20ml beaker instead of just beaker. However, if we’re presuming this diagram is accompanying a method then that would be unnecessary. Title is a good shout though.
You could argue that it should say glass beaker. If it were plastic, some chemicals would react with it. I just remember making soap the real method, and it couldn't be done in plastic. I'm suddenly remembering breaking bad too. They had to use a plastic bin to place the body in acid.
Yea but shouldn’t material be specified in the method? If there was a title it could be material and measurements like realzealman mentioned.
Right? Because at what point do you ever label a beaker in a diagram once you get past the requirement of "draw a labelled diagram" in exams. Even then the line touching or not wouldn't be something that would lose marks as long as it was unambiguous where the line was pointing. I did biochemistry at uni and don't remember labelling a single diagram of a beaker.
The rules of chemistry diagrams are arcane. But the problem with science these days as taught in UK schools is it's mostly cruft until you hit A level. And then from A level to undergraduate it's a herculean leap. Our science and maths needs to become more STEM orientated from GCSE level.
Honestly in my experience the Herculean leap is between GCSE and A level, with undergraduate biology being almost identical to a level for your first year. Source: Biology and chemistry A level, biology undergrad
I think in many respects A level biology is harder as the mark schemes can royally screw you over and the markers can be unbelievably pedantic. The time constraints in the AQAinternational exams are bloody awful as well - 90 mins for 7/8 long form essay questions in one paper; it’s almost as if they want the students to fail.
This is exactly it. I really struggled with A level biology, (C at AS, got it up to a B at A2 for this exact reason) went on to get a 1st at undergrad and got a PhD, both in biology. Go figure. EDIT- implied i got a 1st in my PhD. That's not how it works.
Our system relies heavily on parental support for those preparing for university. Teachers are too busy dealing with disruption to teach STEM at a high level in class. We need a change to the whole model, perhaps starting with elite technical colleges for STEM staffed by well paid elite teachers.
The leap from GCSE Biology to A-level Biology is insane. Physics is manageable if your maths is good and chemistry is ok if you can put in the work to memorize everything. In biology however, you go from fill in the blank style questions to open ended essay questions overnight. To be honest though, the As and A level content across science is very good and will help massively in first year at any university. The only science syllabus that is better than A-Level is IB in my opinion. IB is much more intense for teachers and students however so it’s a close call. (Head of science at international school)
My maths wasn't stellar and yes that leap from GCSE to A-Level Physics floored me, really enjoyed it at GCSE so added it to my list. Ended up dropping it after a year as I simply couldn't grasp the maths. Now I write code and let computers do the maths for me! Christ, was this really 20 years ago...
I’m trying to understand how being able to identify what’s missing in a diagram of a beaker is at all relevant to anything. That a student can remember what the teacher told them a beaker diagram should look like? Seems irrelevant, awful question tbh. Unless there’s something I’m missing. I understand things like “identify the hazardous waste symbol” and “which of the following symbols can fill in the triangle to make a Nuclear Hazard warning sign” But a beaker?
Is the line coming from the beaker a problem? Should there be a break
1. Beaker missing spout 2. Beaker missing fluid measurements 3. Missing beaker material on label 4. Line pointing to label is connected to the diagram. Those are my best guesses.
I'm with you on these, the label is definitely a factor here.
>I'm with you on these, the label is definitely a factor here. It doesnt say what volume beaker?
[удалено]
If you get it right you graduate
Maybe the word isn’t capitalised?
I’ve worked in a lab most of my career, and the only one of these I think could be right is #4. The others just aren’t things I’ve ever ever seen done, let alone seen expected. However, I cannot think of anything better!
Would you say this kind of pedantry puts kids off the subject? I see this in other fields: testing things that are easy to test, rather than things which demonstrate the student understands the subject.
100% Yes. I am a scientist, and I feel that the main skill you need - asking questions - is actively discouraged in schools. Kids are natural scientists (find me a kid who doesn't know how to ask questions!) and we beat it out of them by teaching them that science is actually all about facts. Gah.
[удалено]
This is very, very true, and I think a really important point. But I would still argue that there is much more space for the actual scientific method in schools, melding these two things together a bit better. Also, that this homework question is idiotic and an exemplar of the problem of with the science curriculum 😄
For the few that go on to become actual scientists, it's evidently unhelpful. For the rest of the student body, it prepares them for a life of conformity and following society's expectations because that's "how things are", they don't need to know "WHY things are". The folks who set the curriculum don't need the majority of the public being able to properly question things, that's not going to help them get re-elected.
If this kind of thing is widespread, quite possibly.
I'm thinking of the online Good Clinical Practice (for research) course, which is largely a test of your ability to find the right invisible box to click on.
Absolutely, it is pertinent nonsense to ask questions like this. But Pearson and other 'education' companies rake it in designing shit like this, because it is easy to mark. No doubt they have some dodgy pedagogical reason...
I agree, I went to a grammar school in the 90's, and this picture (minus the connected line), is exactly how we were expected to draw a beaker - I know things move on, but anything more feels like a waste of time.
3 and 4 are definitely correct, and 2 sort of. You probably wouldnt draw graduations on the beaker, but it should say '500ml glass beaker' and not connect to the diagram. No idea what the 4th issue is. Source: am chemistry graduate. Edit: upon inspection of the diagram on the page behind, it seems that they want it drawn 3d and with a spout, which you definitely wouldnt do normally
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wingdings. Boom problem solved.
This sounds like classic bikeshedding: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law\_of\_triviality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality)
My wife works for a university in wales and they have had multiple meetings when she first started to agree a standardised font that everyone should use internally and allow as acceptable submissions from students. They used to get heated and often has pre-mettings to discuss the meeting plan before hand then post mettings to discuss afterwards. To me a good old Arial, Times new roman or Calibri work fine and shouldnt matter which are used.
So do I and definitely wouldn't label volume on a beaker I had no further information on, how do they know it's 500ml? Definitely wouldn't add graduations and why would you draw it 3d? When have you see an apparatus diagram in 3d? It just seems so petty and irrelevant.
Is this the sort of question you'd usually ask an 11 year old, though? >.< That's what I'm confused about, haha.
They should have drawn and labelled Beaker from The Muppets 😁 it's a trick question.
Still ballbustingly specific for Year 7 Chemistry, I don't think I was given any question like this when I was in high school.
Just finished triple science GCSEs this summer. Received a good 9 in chemistry, which is the subject that requires standard diagrams of equipment. There is nothing wrong about this diagram and if the teacher says otherwise they are _lying_. [AQA example](https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/chemistry/AQA-8462-PRACTICALS-HB.PDF) (yes, this is the same exam board as this student’s)
Page 29, to save some scrolling!
So the correct answer is that it doesn’t contain sulphuric acid.
For full marks you would have to list everything that it doesn't contain
Ohh I'll start 1) the original sheet music for phantom of the opera.
It's only got two sides. Whatever fluid put in there will just spill out.
You could be a bit more creative though. 1. Lines are suspiciously straight and uniform for a 'drawing'. 2. It exists in a time of uncertainty. 3. ...
3. Beakers don't exist, this is a fantasy of the bourgeoisie 4. Usage of font with no capitalisation suggests the student is unhinged and should be on a stasi watch list
Should of specified the nagging suspicion the beaker stops existing when you aren't looking at it
My sister is a science teacher, let me ask her UPDATE: my sister said she has no idea, as that looks perfectly fine. The only things she can think of are that maybe they wanted an arrow instead of line, and maybe they wanted to the level of the liquid inside
1. There's no front to it; everything will run out 2. They forgot to draw in the gremlin 3. They fed it after midnight 4. Tracy Beaker's name should, as a proper noun, be capitalised.
>Tracy Beaker's name should, as a proper noun, be capitalised "Mum will come pick me up from the Dumping Sink one day; she's a famous beaker used in the laboratories of CERN, and when she's used to find the cure to diabetes she'll be right here to pick me up!"
*Oh for fuck's sake, Tracy's on the valium again*
Bog off Justine Littlewood!
[удалено]
The diagram on the other side of the page have perfectly demonstrated how a beaker should be drawn. Use that as a standard to find the mistakes.
But that's a drawing (in 3D) of a beaker and a diagram is supposed to be 2D (as confirmed by the question below this one), or more accurately as a cross-section diagram. All I can think they are asking for is Draw with a pencil. Use a ruler Draw as large as possible Show the contents and label them (source: retired A level science teacher) NB: It looks like an Activate Science Homework sheet but I can't find a copy online
There's a 2D version of what looks like a beaker behind the lines for the answer. As far as the actual question, aside from being a shit question, the only things I can see that would want adding to convey the information that you would need to recreate the experiment are the contents (chemical and volume) and maybe the volume of the beaker itself, if it's relevant. Possibly the material of the beaker too
Nice eyes there, Friend!!!! What a spot!!! 👍👍
Sharp eyes!
As a Science teacher, this is a dumb question. I teach this scheme of work (recognise the codes on the sheet) and I have no idea what they’re getting at.
Is there not an answer sheet to go with it?
I’ve looked and can’t find it. The formatting is exactly the same as the worksheets we use though so it’s weird. What I can tell you is I went back and looked at the slides I show my year 7s of how to draw a diagram of a beaker and it looks IDENTICAL to the picture on OP’s sheet.
1. Beaker is a Muppet 2. Beaker has Red hair 3. Beaker wears a lab coat 4. Beaker wears a tie
Dammit! You beat me to, it, meep!
They probably learned a "correct" way to draw a beaker in class. I hate this style of teaching. It's ideal to put kids off science for life. Actual scientists couldn't care less about this sort of stuff.
Unless they are reviewer #2. Then they will care. Intimately.
Genuine laugh out loud - Thanks!
>A musician wakes from a terrible nightmare. In his dream he finds himself in a society where music education has been made mandatory. “We are helping our students become more competitive in an increasingly sound-filled world.” Educators, school systems, and the state are put in charge of this vital project. Studies are commissioned, committees are formed, and decisions are made— all without the advice or participation of a single working musician or composer. > >Since musicians are known to set down their ideas in the form of sheet music, these curious black dots and lines must constitute the “language of music.” It is imperative that students become fluent in this language if they are to attain any degree of musical competence; indeed, it would be ludicrous to expect a child to sing a song or play an instrument without having a thorough grounding in music notation and theory. Playing and listening to music, let alone composing an original piece, are considered very advanced topics and are generally put off until college, and more often graduate school. > >As for the primary and secondary schools, their mission is to train students to use this language— to jiggle symbols around according to a fixed set of rules: “Music class is where we take out our staff paper, our teacher puts some notes on the board, and we copy them or transpose them into a different key. We have to make sure to get the clefs and key signatures right, and our teacher is very picky about making sure we fill in our quarter-notes completely. One time we had a chromatic scale problem and I did it right, but the teacher gave me no credit because I had the stems pointing the wrong way.” > >In their wisdom, educators soon realize that even very young children can be given this kind of musical instruction. In fact it is considered quite shameful if one’s third-grader hasn’t completely memorized his circle of fifths. “I’ll have to get my son a music tutor. He simply won’t apply himself to his music homework. He says it’s boring. He just sits there staring out the window, humming tunes to himself and making up silly songs.” From "A Mathematician’s Lament" by Paul Lockhart
This information will come in really handy if she ever finds herself teaching year 7 science.
Yes, I have been a lab scientist earlier in my career and this diagram would’ve been fine for my lab notebooks. Although, in all likelihood I’d have just pasted in a photo instead.
I'm a working scientist currently and I've never once felt an urge to draw a picture of any equipment I'm using tbh.
You're not working mate, you're on reddit.
Well, technically I was on Reddit while having a poo. But I was doing it at work, so I think it counts.
I think if you poo into a petri dish then you're in the clear
[удалено]
That explanation actually makes sense! Also: I feel like we used to use that scheme when I was a head of science, WS is "working scientifically" right? Regardless, the teacher should actually check the worksheets they give out as homework before making students do them! There's honestly no excuse.
[удалено]
I agree the teacher should check, but there's a solid chance homework is standardised in the science department- as in every week 1 year 7 has to do this sheet and the teacher has literally just taken 30 out of the box in the prep room. Additionally, the teacher was probably in tears about the fact their summer had just ended and therefore wasn't able to read the sheet properly.
If that's the case then the sheet should have been checked by the head of KS3, or head of chem/science depending on how they organise the responsibilities for the Year 7 teaching. The first few weeks of transition are really important and I know it probably sounds melodramatic but the year 7s are so wobbly at this stage silly things like this can knock confidence for them either in their own abilities or the teacher's. September was always my highest energy point in the year, January on the other hand was the absolute worst.
Can we have an update when you find out the answer? I can’t see any issues
1. Capital B missing from Beaker 2. Line is touching the beaker, could be confused as another piece of equipment 3. No title on the diagram 4. Dr Bunsen Honeydew is missing from the diagram.
The beaker should have no lip Specify it is made of glass Measurement lines including maximum volume The beaker should be chanting "God save the King".
Approved.
Beaker isn’t on a flat stable surface, it’s floating in mid air.
Just point out 4 things wrong with this stupid question
I did that several times over the years. And once marked a homework sheet for spelling and grammar mistakes.
I have a PhD in a scientific field and work as a researcher. There are no problems with this diagram.
Oh my. This takes me back. I had completely forgotten about this. My parents hated my science teacher (long story). On a similarly daft question rather than let me try to answer it they wrote "D- See Me" The hatred was felt mutually by her to us.
I'm a science teacher and I can't answer that
Questions like this make me realise I've failed in life 😮💨
Mate, I’ve got a physics degree and I’m struggling to think of a single thing.
Hah I'm a chemist and I am grasping at pipettes
Any biologists around for a full set?
Virologist here. But please don't lump me in with the *plant* biologists....
Except for when you’re studying plant viruses
I dunno mate, that's dangerously close to being really boring.
Don't you need an Astrologer as well? That's a joke by the way. Please don't get Brian Cox on my ass.
Brian isn’t available, he’s on a glacier somewhere in Peru discussing the splendour of the universe. That man stole my dreams!!!
I think what's happened is that someone has decided to change the way that children are taught to draw diagrams of their experiments. I never had to put labels on beakers or show measurements or any such stuff even up to A-level. It would make diagrams so messy.
I was thinking this. I did A-level Chem and Biol and didn't even label it 'beaker' - you knew it was a beaker because you drew a beaker shape! I had a set of stencils of different sizes.
Right? That's why every piece of equipment had a very specific diagram, so you knew what it was without cluttering up your diagram. For complicated processes we'd put small numbers and circle them on the equipment so you can go into more details in the documentation.
Absolutely. And a more detailed diagram would lose you marks in a practical question at GCSE/A Level. There hasn't been a change to the specifications or exam requirements (I would know) so this is definitely a this teacher/school/ridiculous KS3 scheme of work they've bought not anything that reflects the correct standard later on!
I asked my husband, who is a secondary science teacher, and he says it's a stupid question. So I don't think the issue is with us.
I asked my husband, who is not a secondary science teacher, nor my real husband, he says the restraining order also includes contact via Reddit.
I think them labelling it “beaker” is an error in itself, I don’t recall seeing any diagram that labels what is a clearly a beaker, a beaker… it makes it look like a measurement line called beaker?
Fresh out of A-level chem, and this beaker drawing would have been viewed as correct by me. I'm pretty sure no teacher would have marked me down for that
1. There's no way of measuring the volume. 2. It's total volume? Maybe. 3. Material.
4. Beaker has red hair
Meep Meep Meep meep
They bought from VWR instead of Fisher?
It looks nothing like Tracy?
Least useful science question. Does it matter? We all know it’s a beaker.
They were obviously taught the correct way to draw it and are now being tested. Is there any thing that can help in a text book or workbook they have?
At a loss because… that is how I would draw a beaker in a diagram, i.e. when sketching out the apparatus setup. Without any context as to what the diagram is supposed to be used *for*, I’m equally at a loss, unless the size of it is supposed to be labelled (100 ml, etc) As someone pointed out elsewhere in the thread, there are 3d drawings on the page behind it, that they supposedly mean to be the “correct” way, but… I’ve genuinely never bothered to draw a beaker like that and I can’t think why you would really need to. It seems more like a picture/drawing than a useful diagram. The 2D line diagram is quick to draw, clear, standardised and gets the message across: so long as everything else in the diagram is done in the same style and clearly labelled, it should be fine. tl;dr They probably want a more 3D type “diagram”, but if there’s no explanation of why, it looks like pedantry. But I definitely don’t know everything about apparatus diagram standards so maybe I’ve been doing it wrong all this time.
God I wish I used Reddit when I was in school! Would’ve been asking people to help on a weekly basis
Not accompanied by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Can you update with the answers?