Maximizing chances of GCSE grades at 8/9 is essential

This is such a bizzare comment
what kind of job is looking at gcse grades?
why would a recruiting manager have any idea whether a random secondary school is considered good or not?
what a strange, insular take on a method introduced to increase diversity and reduce bias for job applicants.

But surely universities only have GCSEs to go on so the higher the grade the better. At the time of application, A level grades will only be predicted

@TotHappy yes it is. The vast majority applying to Oxbridge will have very high GCSEs, and they do stipulate minimum grades in some subjects. All things being equal, why would they choose student A with 6s and 7s over student B with 8/9s? Of course there are always exceptions, but generally for the top tier unis GCSEs count.
However OP, 7-9s are excellent GCSEs.

Oxford for anything and, Medicine need best grades. And some Law courses. Oh and some Engineering. So yes, get 8/9s if can.

https://www.dofe.org/thelatest/annual-statistics-2024/#:~:text=The%20DofE%20is%20continuing%20to,their%20Award%20in%202023%2F24.

Yes. I have 10 GCSEs grades A and B (way before A*s were a thing). Neither my PGCE provider (Russell Group university) nor any school have ever cared what grades I have in any of them other than Maths and English.

She absolutely did. She was referring to receiving CVs for students applying for a year in industry, not applying to university, so a different context. Based on looking at their achievements on their CVs alone, she said: 'All those things just told us they were from middle class families and nothing about their abilities or interest in their subject.'

I'd say that was writing off these young people's achievements as pointless, if, as an employer, she couldn't be bothered to think about what those qualifications may say about those young people and their interests, and instead just lumped them together as 'things middle class children do'.

@EnidSpyton Do you know how bloody difficult it is to get a D of E Gold? It's only achieved by about a tenth of the students who get a Bronze, because it's incredibly challenging. The organisation provides financial support to those unable to pay - so it's not 'elitist' or 'middle class' - a good proportion of participants come from underprivileged backgrounds.

Do you have a link to stats on demographics of awardees? I’ve been looking but can’t find them.

They're important because they afford bragging rights to parents.

GCSEs are the key to getting into 6th form. Your A Levels are the key to getting into university.

That's it.

Behind all of those achievements you've just written off as being pointless...

She didn't. Just that they're not that important for uni applications. They're worthwhile as ends in themselves, not means to an end.

Re something like DofE - DH used to interview people. He said he'd be impressed by some people having done it, but not others.

My DS applied for Medicine this year. Some unis wanted certain GCSE or Maths or certain science. I think one scored 7s differently to 8s/9s but it wasn't a barrier just part of a wide scoring process. He looked at Oxbridge, London unis, St Andrews etc.

I think you ABU

It isn't equivalent to a 7. More like a 4/5

On a UCAS form extracurricular stuff is (or should be) put in context in terms of how it is relevant to the student's application for their subject choices. It is part of their written personal statement that allows them to show how their interests tie in with their subject choices and what they have learned about their subject from them.

That's an entirely different scenario to you as an employer receiving a bunch of CVs with no written application. You're comparing apples with oranges.

That being said, I'd like to think that as an employer, you'd be able to think more flexibly and consider what traits and qualities people who had applied themselves to doing these activities might be able to bring to your organisation. Writing off quite significant activities as 'middle class' and 'completely indistinguishable' is rather harsh. Achieving a Grade 6 in a musical instrument is not easy. It requires a huge amount of dedicated study and practice, and the passing of the theory exam, too, which is also challenging academically. Do you know how bloody difficult it is to get a D of E Gold? It's only achieved by about a tenth of the students who get a Bronze, because it's incredibly challenging. The organisation provides financial support to those unable to pay - so it's not 'elitist' or 'middle class' - a good proportion of participants come from underprivileged backgrounds. And yes, ok, fine, it does cost a lot of money to go abroad and dig wells on your gap year - but at least these kids are doing something for others, and had the bravery to go out of their comfort zone, try something new, and hopefully learn from the experience. Most young people don't take a gap year, and don't volunteer in any capacity, regardless of who they are or what background they come from, so it's still something to be commended. There's no need to be so judgemental about it.

I'm disappointed that someone who appreciates the beauty of Olga Tokarczuk's writing can be so closed minded. Behind all of those achievements you've just written off as being pointless is a huge amount of hard work for those individual young people, regardless of what family background they have.

A student with all 9s who does nothing other than study is going to be a much less attractive candidate than one with all 7 and 8s but who is also on the school rugby team, is the lead in the school musical and volunteers at the local Scout pack on the weekends, for example.

This is rubbish. I once received a large batch of CVs for a year in Industry from a University beloved of MN and every single student had a DoE gold, grade 6 or above in an instrument and played in an orchestra, was captain of a sports team and had dug wells in a third world country during their gap year. They were completely indistinguishable from each other. All those things just told us they were from middle class families and nothing about their abilities or interest in their subject.

As a Drama teacher, I don't agree with you there. I do get a bit annoyed when people bleat on about Drama being the provision of the elite only - it really isn't. The vast majority of schools will have a Drama department or teach Drama as part of English, at least at KS3 - it's a national curriculum requirement (and though academies don't have to follow the national curriculum, in practice, most of them do). I've got colleagues working in some of the most challenging comps in London with upwards of 80% of students on free school meals and from really difficult backgrounds, running incredible Drama departments that have links with some of the top London theatres, where their kids get to perform at the National, the Globe, etc. Most theatres with public funding - including regional ones - have outreach programmes that will be providing free or heavily discounted drama activities and youth theatres for children and young people. There are also plenty of free or very low cost opportunities for young people to take part in community drama/festivals/etc. In my inner London borough, there is a huge youth theatre that's churned out loads of big name stars that is 100% free to attend. Drama is not elitist. It really, really, isn't. You don't need a big expensive theatre and fancy lights and a professional director to put on an incredible school show. I should know - I do two every year without any of that!

Anyone applying to a top university needs to show initiative when demonstrating passion for a subject. Your example of deliberately researching underperformed Jacobean playwrights, seeking out podcasts and perhaps watching some recorded performances, shows initiative. There are degrees of effort involved there that show a student with real drive and passion and one who is engaged in their subject way beyond the boundaries of the school curriculum. A student applying for PPE who listens to a Guardian podcast on politics occasionally - not so much.

It depends on the uni and the course, but generally I wouldn't get too stressed about the GCSEs. There may be variations within the same uni but different faculties. A friend is a professor at Imperial and has repeatedly told me that they don't even look at GCSEs. Just A-levels and specific admissions tests.

My DD is currently at Cambridge. Some of her cohort had a variety of 8-9s and the odd 7. Oxbridge have their own admission tests and interviews. Conversely plenty of kids with all 9s in their GCSEs did not even get an interview as they messed up their admission test.

I know plenty of kids at the London Unis with a variety of GCSEs. Admittedly not below 7, but again it depends on the course. I'm sure there will be students with the odd 6 (but not perhaps on the subject they want to study at uni).

If one has strong predicted A-levels, the odd GCSE lower grade is not going to make a difference. (This is not what I told my DS who is waiting for his results in a couple of weeks, but he knows... 🤪)

I think you've got quite a limited view there on how interests and subjects can be connected. I've had students talk about how their study of nineteenth century piano music as a diploma pianist has enriched their understanding of the role of music as a courtship activity in nineteenth century novels (English being their university subject). A netballer passionate about sport and nutrition could tie that into a Biology application. Extracurricular activities can provide surprising and interesting connections to seemingly unrelated subject choices - a truly outstanding student will be able to make those connections and show how they use what they do outside of school to enrich their understanding of what they learn in school. Saying that your passion for your subject is fuelled by listening to podcasts and reading books not already on the curriculum isn't going to make a university sit up and pay attention to you, I'm afraid.

The key bit is only talk about the books they have read for A levels.

Being able to perform Shakespeare (or any drama) is a sign of luck/privelege. It means you go to a school with a drama department or teacher willing to put on plays or you can afford to attend/travel to a youth theatre. The former was very much lacking in my son's school.

Don't get me wrong, ds talked about NYMT and how he developed as a musician with them but we(and universities) are very aware that you need money to be able to attend. My dh has confirmed this as a university lecturer.

Being able to say they read a jacobean play from a lesser known playwright because they listened to a podcast about him (or in my son's case talking about exploring the music of Jacob Collier and following a musical director podcast series) was just as valid.

I know at least two people at Cambridge (not the mythical Oxbridge!) who have couple of 6s in their GCSEs. Not in their degree subject obvs. I gather Oxford places more stress on level of GCSE grades but even it is fine with all 7-8-9 tbh.

Very very few dc get all grade 9. Something like 2000 in ds2’s GCSE year!

Oh and to add... for most careers, relevant voluntary or paid work experience and research into what the profession involves is more important further down the line... good grades aren't enough. So if they're on track for good grades already, perhaps focusing on this would be more valuable.

As others have pointed out, top unis don't make a difference to earnings so much anymore, especially longer-term and especially with many top employers deliberately taking a more egalitarian approach to unis they recruit from.

@clary
Unis don’t look at all this. They want evidence of interest and passion for the subject to be studied.

A well written application links extracurricular interests to the subject being studied.

Someone who can say they want to study English because of their love for Shakespeare developed through performing it as part of the school theatrical society is going to be far more interesting to a university than someone who wants to study English because they love reading and then can only talk about the books they've read for their A Levels.

I have been a teacher for 15 years, and a form tutor for Year 12 for most of that time, so I've done a lot of UCAS prep in my time and do know what I'm talking about, thanks!

Well of course supercurricular can be the same as extra curricular. My son is doing a music degree and all his extra curricular performing arts activities are relevant.

But that's not what the majority of people mean when they talk about extra curricular. For most it wouldn't matter how many grade 8 instruments or netball captainships they had if applying to English Lit or maths or biological sciences etc etc. What matters is that they have a passion for their subject and have read around it beyond the A level curriculum/listened to podcasts/online lectures etc etc.

There are some specific uni courses where 8s and 9s will help, for sure, and higher grades are useful for helping to get a foot in the door for certain careers. If 8s and 9s are realistic and DC is on board and motivated, it seems like there is a clear benefit in supporting them to do the best they can (at least in their favourite subjects / those aligned with any future careers they might like).

A few counterpoints to consider though:

1. A levels are still more important (and extra GCSE tutoring won't automatically make your DC better prepared for A Levels... in some subjects it is helpful but in others the new qualification means learning a different set of information and different exam question hoops).

2. If the level of extra work and tutoring required demoralises DC and leaves them resentful or overly stressed, this might be more damaging to their future education than helpful. A genuine academic interest in things and a desire to read around favourite subjects can really be drained out of kids by the exam system unfortunately.

3. If the school is a state school that doesn't generally get good results and / or serves a less allfuent demographic, that will likely count in DC's favour with uni applications to some extent. Unis take context into account.

4. 7s will make it more difficult for DC to get into very top unis and most competitive courses (eg medicine) but won't otherwise be a problem. Even if they don't know what they want i do, checking out specific entry requirements on uni websites for courses they like the vague sound of would be valuable intel here.
   Also: if they need tutoring and loads of pushing to get more than 7s, they aren't necessarily going to thrive on the most ultra competitive uni courses in future (although please note I said 'not necessarily' - loads of people bloom later / are more suited to advanced creative thinking than to GCSE hoop-jumping / have been badly taught to the point where getting a 7 is a miracle so I wouldn't want your DC to limit themselves!).

More I think about it. I think 8s and 9s only truly matter for the top top unis.

And after multiple discussions on MN I feel that going a top uni means less and less in terms of career earnings.

Alot depends on what they are thinking of for A Level and Uni. We tutored for MAths but that was as she was going to be moved into the only get up to a 5 group which was ridiculous, we were told this 3 months before sitting exams - she had a tutor for around 10 weeks one hr a week and got an 8, perfectly capable with a bit of attention and personalised assessment of her weaknesses then focussed on those in the sessions - it was liturally practice and explaining things slightly different and focussed time - she had no lack in ability just neglected in school when they were in and obv during lock down. My view would be focus on the A level subjects and get some tutoring in those - maybe not all at the same time - sequentially or well spread as there will still be school work as well, and if they are not maths and english maybe those too depending on what the forecast is