Latin or economics gcse?

Yes, TimeChild, I agree that there should be some sort of financial education in KS3 but I would continue with it in KS4 and leave Economics to KS5 as at that stage children would have the background knowledge and mathematical skill to have a decent stab at it!

I don't believe anyone considers Economics to be easy or lacking in rigour at degree level (or if they do they should try sitting through an Econometrics lecture!)

I do agree that there seems to be a "fashion" for Latin. At GCSE level there seems to be a lot of rote learning.

My DCs comp has offered Latin for years - its a way to stretch the top kids sideways.

Economics is indeed very hard - lock as the fuck up the professors made of their predictions in 2006.
BUT It is a subject that sits on top of others and should NOT be taught at school.

Thank you, Caoimhe I thought I was a lone voice there!

Totally agree with what you say. GCSE Economics is probably a real doddle - because you are starting the subject from a standing start as it is not taught in ks3. Financial education should be a core subject in ks3 from which students can opt to study 'proper' economics at ks4. I know that there was an attempt to include finance/economics into the national curriculum as a core many years ago but from what my dc are offered I think it has failed.

I have never understood why Economics is looked down upon as not rigorous and 'easy'. Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo (founding fathers of economics as a discipline) all came before Darwin but as they were opening up a new way of studying something (society and economy) that never really existed before except as a branch of philosophy they have never been widely acknowledged with the pivotal role that the subject contributes to how we live today.

It is a shame that this continues today and students who want a challenge are discouraged from starting the subject from an earlier age because of this history. If GCSE Economics is too easy, why not offer AS as well?

As for Latin, I think it is a bit of a fashion at the moment, thanks to Gove et al, as something that all 'academic' students should aspire to studying. If you want a REAL classics challenge, they should study Ancient Greek

Latin for me. Watch Ferris Bueller for economics?

I loved Latin GCSE and think Economics is a subject to pick up at degree level.

The grammar was very useful with modern languages and with English, as was the vocabulary. It wasn't very different from the old O-level in those days and may well have changed since. It wasn't harder than other subjects though relied on a reasonable memory.

Latin was odd because we did literature - part of the Aeneid and some of Pliny's letters - which wasn't included in modern language GCSEs. The language was a bit beyond us so I remember learning it all in English and linking that to recognisable phrases in the Latin.

Latin, every time. Fabulous work out for the brain, requires application, skills based. Massive help with any other language.

(am an English teacher & Classics grad who teaches GCSE Latin, so admittedly biased. Guilty as charged to Tunip's accusation of superkeenness!)

My nephew is doing both Latin and Economics at GCSE. He is finding Economics a total doddle. I am an Economics graduate too and the stuff they learn at GCSE level is hardly worth bothering with.

I am a fan of financial education in schools but GCSE Economics isn't what children need to know!

Turnip, you are probably right that I was badly taught (though still managed to get an A)...

Glad to hear that things have improved today although I still wonder how much relevance the lives of the ancient Romans (fasciniating as they are) have with much of today. I guess that's just me.

It sounds like you were badly taught. I had excellent Latin teachers who were very good at both making the ancient Romans come alive and making it feel relevant to modern culture. Also in my day you did large chunks of original Latin even for GCSE. In general people only become Latin teachers if they are super-keen (it's not like there are loads of jobs) so the average Latin teacher is usually pretty good these days.

Turnip, I only did O level Latin not GCSE, but what we were taught was deader than the language itself. We hardly studied any real Latin, ie those classics written in the Roman times. For most of the course we studied some made up stories about Marcus and Sextus written by someone at Longmans publishers.

What is the intellectual challenge in that?

TalkinPeace, looking at your examples, I would say that the situation is the opposite - ECONOMICS underpins geography rather than the other way round!

Agree that being literate and numerate will help in the study of economics, as for most subjects if that's what you mean by a broader education?

Understanding how market forces work, how banks create credit, how interest rate works are surely an important part of understanding how the modern western society works.

I would say that if more people in positions of responsibility understood economics we wouldn't be in the situation today.

Latin.

Economics is interesting, but I think what people are saying here is that at GCSE level Latin is likely to be more satisfying and better at proving your ability hence better regarded by employers.
I don't think people are dissing economics per se.
When I did GCSEs there was very little opportunity for genuine intellectual challenge in most subjects (just pots of rote learning) and Latin felt very valuable because of that.

Timechild
utterly shedloads - an understanding of globalism and colonialism for a teeny start
the relationship between industrial revolutions and resources
the structure of settlements

And what has Geography got to do with economics?

well it's as applied as medicine is.
show me Medicine GCSE ....

Economics can ONLY be understood by those who have a broader education - part of the fuckup of the current system is too many people reaching positions of responsibility without experience

Wow! Got to speak up for Economics here.

Latin is soooo boring - I've got A at O level for it and never saw the point. Also I thought it was quite easy, much easier than French and German which I also did for O level.

I am an Economics graduate and it is not an "applied" subject - well it's as applied as medicine is. The grounding for it is philosophy and mathematics and in my view absolutely vital for helping understand all the important things happening in the real world today - eg euro crisis, debt crisis, how banks work etc. Should be taught at some level to all secondary children in my view then we will have a more economically literate society.

Really can't see the popularity of Latin at mo. I think its just fashion.

Silly thing with Latin.

Walking round Wisley with my sister yesterday - and her work with a medical company helped her understand the Latin plant names ....

Geography : I'm biased - it was my BSc but YES its the secret grounding subject for economics. Understanding the WHY of societies is so useful.

Latin, just because.

Latin, for all the reasons that others have given and I teach it.

My ds is taking a Latin gcse in 6the form. It may just be a short.course but he seems to think it is easy.
He says it is just a passage of translation into English and an essay on any aspect of Roman life written in English.

Yep. You don't need an economics A level to do an economics degree. And that says it all, really.

speaking as an accountant

LATIN

Applied subjects like Economics should only be started after the grounding subjects are all in place.
For Economics, the groundings are Maths, English and History