DD didn't get GCSE options

There won't be any medical schools in the country that won't except double science because that would automatically exclude some candidates. This was the case when I applied to medical the year before last. I only had double science and still got offers (including from Oxbridge). Specifically for oxbridge it would certainly be better to have 2 As over 3As because your A% determines what BMAT score you need for interview.

Have you had any answers op?

OP - Could the school be taking other levels rather than than just those for science into consideration?
I know at DD's school. as well as needing a 6 (possibly 6a, can't quite remember) for science, they also wanted at least 6a for maths and 5a for English.

Then your daughter won't have fewer GCSEs if she does double because she will have two sciences plus another GCSE which she studies in the extra 5 hours a fortnight not being used for triple. Both pathways give a possible three GCSEs.

I wonder if the triple results have a bearing on being studied in normal science curriculum time. Ours get the extra, what is it, 2.5 hours a week for triple? Whatever an option block give. By the time you pull out all the time needed for controlled assessments, maybe it's the choice to 'cram' it which is the problem. Or, at least part of the problem.

My understanding for medicine and Oxbridge science is that if triple is offered, you should have done it. hOWEVER, with results that poor across the year group at the OP"s school, unis. might apply different criteria - some admissions officers particularly look for results for an applicant better than their schools average or norm - so if the OP's DD does get 2 A*s at double science (and then everything else needed incl good BMAT scores etc) then perversely, she might be looked on favourably - it may come down to the individual school's performance.

.....I would have expected better triple results from a specially chosen small cohort, all who were at the top of their game.

Also, how can they have 'almost guaranteed' a triple study place when the number they choose sounds likely to be less than in the top set!

Those results are weaker than our comp (which loses about 10% to the local grammar). We have about 30'triple entries and we probably have an average of B but any 6 level can take it and we always get 3 or 4 who smash out A* across the three.

Not sure about double because they don't tend to make the headlines but we do get clever children do double - usually where they love languages, humanities or arts rather than wanting a scientific career.

I w

At my dc's independent, a few of the brightest children choose double to fit in an extra language or whatever instead. It's not stopped them go on to medicine/science later on either and they have actually had the choice to do triple and declined (which someone upthread suggested might be relevant). To be fair though, I don't think anyone's taken that path (medicine from double science) for a few years now, but that's probably just a statistical thing as I'm only talking about the occasional child here.

OP those results look a bit grim - your dd will need to be right at the top of her cohort to get the grades needed for medicine whichever route she goes. Some external tutoring wouldn't go amiss if the school hasn't taken steps to improve things.

those results are awful
to whoever above asked about students at Oxbridge doing medicine with double - i know several, whilst at my own school nearly all the kids do triple, at the indi my boys go to core and additional is the only option. They get between 18-25 into Oxbridge every year, they all have done double only. At least 3 of last years year 13 are at Oxbridge doing medicine with core and additional (all with A*s though) this year.

What type of school is this? Is it a comp? Those results look terrible.

I wouldn't consult a parent over level 6s if that was the right level for that child. What is her target for end of KS3? Mind you, I wouldn't promise triple science places until I had done the setting.

36 would be a really bad number actually. Too big for a lab (I have fitted a group of 33 in my room, but only just), and too small to be divided in two. Staffing two top sets of 18 just wouldn't happen.

It does seem an artificial restriction on numbers. They can't argue that there's no room in that triple science set because there aren't enough desks in the labs, unless it's some sort of micro-school. I'd be interested to know their justification for such a small class.

I know. And the knock on effect on their lower groups...

Have there been issues with their triple science results I wonder?

I'd love a top set class of 24 students - imagine what you could get done with that small a class of bright kids!