The Instigator
SM04
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Debatasaurus
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should science replace physics chemistry biology in 10TH STANDARD board exams

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Debatasaurus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 76832
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

SM04

Con

There are certain things that we study in great detail when we are studying physics chemistry biology separately. Gaining knowledge should be the motto of life not gaining marks. Studying science as combined subject reduces workload but at the same time it reduces knowledge gained.
Debatasaurus

Pro

I first would like to tell you a bit about myself. I am currently doing A-Levels, which are the equivalent of the exams after 10th standard; while GCSEs, which I did when I was 16, are the equivalent of 10th standard exams. In the UK, where I live, GCSEs are taken by most with a variety of subjects, including compulsory subjects such as Mathematics, English, and Science, and optional subjects such as Geography and Foreign Languages. Regarding Science, there are essentially nine sections to all science courses. There are first the basic three units of biology, chemistry and physics which together form the basic GCSE Science. You can then do a further three units to add a GCSE Additional Science, and then a further three to complete three individual GCSEs of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. This means that the British (or more precisely, English and Welsh) education system incorporates both sides of the coin of this debate. While all of this is irrelevant for the debate, I hope this gives a context to my arguments.

Firstly, GCSEs have to be done by everyone (within reason) and Science is a core and basic subject that the UK government wants to be done by everyone. In an ever globalised world, every government is keen on improving education and ensuring the nation is competitive. It is in the government's best interests that students study with both breadth and depth, and the 10th standard serves the breadth requirement while the following years provide more depth. To be effective, depth must have less breadth, so that students can specialise. So, while gaining knowledge is useful and important, the education system should allow many to gain lots of knowledge in science and even more to have enough knowledge to specialise, get jobs, and help the economy. Not everyone in the world can do a degree in physics, but everyone should be able to gain a basic, 10th standard qualification in the sciences. So if combining sciences together allows more students to study it and ensures that less students are totally left in the dark regarding basic science, then full steam ahead.
Debate Round No. 1
SM04

Con

One should be well ahead of his times. At least that's what it is in India. To get great marks and enter IIT, one should start gaining twelve standard knowledge from 8 and 9 itself. Therefore studying the sciences separately enhances the foundation
Debatasaurus

Pro

To me, what seems to be the key issue about studying sciences together is the volume of content learned. Now, a science qualification can have the same amount of content as three science qualifications put together; if one student can do either in the same amount of time it is logical to say that both have the same amount of content. If you mix three chemicals, the resulting solution may be of a smaller volume than the combined three, but it will have the same mass. Similarly, combining biology, chemistry and physics should do no harm to the amount of knowledge acquired by the students; it shouldn't make any difference.

Yet in reality, it is easy to find areas where biology, chemistry and physics overlap and complement each other. A good knowledge of chemistry is extremely useful for biochemistry, where knowledge of different types of bonding can explain the way biochemistry works. Physics and chemistry complement each other regarding atoms and sub-atomic particles. All three can help regarding environmental issues of pollution and global warming. Someone who wants to go into the medical field would find a solid foundation of chemistry or physics extremely useful, and some medical degrees even require all three sciences studied at a high level. So studying the sciences together enhances knowledge where the sciences complement each other, and can be extremely useful when linking topics to discuss something that transcends the divisions of biology, chemistry and physics.
Debate Round No. 2
SM04

Con

Go home and sleep
Debatasaurus

Pro

I am not too sure what my opponent means by his/her statement, so I will continue elaborating my viewpoint. If my opponent is already flagging and giving up, I would like to point out that there are two rounds to follow this one. Gruelling is an understatement.

Science is a very general term that covers a very broad area. In the real world, no one person is highly knowledgeable in all areas of science, but only in certain small areas. It is helpful to divide up the large term "science" into three areas: biology, chemistry and physics. This, however, is unhelpful in the professional world because, again, there is no one person who is highly knowledgeable in all areas of biology, chemistry or physics. So the divisions are not useful for proper professional science. So what is its role? To help "classify" even smaller groupings as it were. For example, a layman who reads that spectroscopy is mainly physics and has useful applications in chemistry will understand what spectroscopy consists of better than if he only read that it is a branch of science.

However, when it comes to education, the three branches of science should interact and create a complete picture together. How else do you better educate your future scientists by showing them how to apply knowledge from one area of science to explain something in another? A sound knowledge of all three sciences and where they complement each other would help for something like spectroscopy. So while biology, chemistry and physics are useful in study, all three sciences should still be taught in harmony to better students" scientific skills.
Debate Round No. 3
SM04

Con

u don't know anything so don't bluff
Debatasaurus

Pro

I have to say, my opponent certainly seems desperate to debate without actually debating. He, the instigator, has decided to debate a subject that is relevant and important but in an offhand and complacent way. Nevertheless I will address his argument from round 2, where he suggested that learning the sciences separately both allows one to be above average - "ahead of his times" - and gives a strong "foundation", presumably for further study in IIT. In fact, the opposite is true. The key to excelling in science and technology is being able to link scientific concepts, understand the overall scientific picture of the issue being dealt with, and thus being able to produce a better and more efficient result. So learning science under one umbrella subject already links all the knowledge gained by the student under the 'umbrella' and, when confronted with a scientific issue involving hard problems, the ability to link concepts will already be partially there. And, regarding the strong foundation, one can learn the same volume of knowledge in a science course as in biology, chemistry and physics courses. The focal point of this debate is whether it should be one big umbrella subject called science, or three smaller ones called biology, chemistry and physics. And, based on the above, the former is clearly the more desirable option.

I strongly urge my opponent to write a proper argument in the next round so that we can have a more enhanced discussion to conclude this important debate.
Debate Round No. 4
SM04

Con

SM04 forfeited this round.
Debatasaurus

Pro

Debatasaurus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Debatasaurus 2 years ago
Debatasaurus
So we are discussing the Indian exams primarily? Can someone tell me how they work - I'm not to sure about it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Martley 2 years ago
Martley
SM04DebatasaurusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: At least Pro tried to have a debate.