§ 19. Mr. John MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has as to the acceptability of SMP mathematics and Nuffield physics as qualifications for the engineering industry as compared with traditional mathematics and traditional physics.
§ Mr. MacfarlaneMy right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any evidence that any one A-level mathematics or physics course consistently produces better or worse prepared candidates for careers in engineering; nor is he aware of any systematic study of the preferences of the engineering industry.
§ Mr. MacKayWill my hon. Friend undertake to see whether the engineering industry has any reservations about modern mathematics or physics courses? Is he aware that if it does that would have most serious implications for our schools which should consider their mathematics and physics syllabuses with a view to the use that future students of engineering and physics might make of them?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneThat is an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes that the Cockcroft committee will shortly have some advice to offer on the question of mathematics syllabuses. We are certainly aware that some employers have expressed a preference for more traditional courses, but I hope that the House will be pleased to hear that this is part of a regular scrutiny of the GCE syllabus, and so far neither has given rise to concern about standards of acceptability by engineering companies and universities.