A bit off thread, but I´d like to repsond to some of the attitude shown by physicsgeek much earlier in this thread. On my PGCE, you could spot the physics trainees a mile off as having an aloof and disinterested attitude, and openly rejecting the idea a teaching anything other than their specialism. On teaching practice, I saw and heard another examples of physics trainees hashing together a lesson based largely on direct dictation and board work, which kind of took the **** when you had got through on 2 hours sleep to have the best lessons you could come up with (despite being shattered) prepared in the agonisingly (and yes, unnecessary) level of detail on typed timed lesson plans. Yes, physics is immensely valuable, I wish I had been taught it more thoroughly at school, as I am now self teaching it with a view do doing A-level or being able to deal with A- level should I be needed to. Our biology group were interested, animated, and knew they only had one area of specialism and so lapped up the crossover courses on the PGCE. The physicists were known for not giving a damn. Ok, only one sample group, but this was the case. For a bit of background, I´m a biochemist who specialised in Biology. No, I´m not anti-non-biologist, I just dislike rejection of an area of science because someone feels sufficiently job secure to not give a damn about being able to communicate it. Should biology be removed as a shortage subject? Possibly. Should physicists and chemists have to show more knowledge of biology? Definitely. Should the converse be true of biologists? Of course.