GCSE options...how much do they really matter?

Agree yellow. And it would be a shame if such considerations put children off taking a non standard subject that they would enjoy, but if it happens to be your niche then it might be advisable?

Percentage of A is very niche though gelo*.

Thanks for all the advice, I'll take few more questions along to her options evening this week and see where we are after that.

So much depends on the student, their motivation and ability.

My oldest was academic so chose a string of academic GCSEs. For her German was her 'fun' sunject. She did well and has now moved onto A levels.

DS is quite different and is not currently planning to do A levels. His choices are different. He is taking the core academic GCSEs with dual science. For his options he has chosen two different practical BTECs. No way would I try to flog him down a purely academic route.

It is true about extra workload being a consideration. All GCSE's require work . My DS did design tech which he found very easy but it definitely required plenty of work.

Art, photography, drama etc etc take time.

It is better to have fewer excellent grades than a huge string of OK ones. As a general rule, if you have 8-10 excellent grades then you will be in a very good position.

I know several students who have regretted PE because it has given them a lower result than their other subjects - all A*/A with a B or lower in PE seems to be a not uncommon result. Even really sporty dc sometimes get lower grades than they expect as they need to have 4 sports and they have often specialised in just one.

On the one hand I'd say that universities/employers would probably look at that and not really care because the low result was 'only' PE, but it does mean that for competitive courses that demand a set percentage of A* for example, a child might fail an initial sieve?

I also know one parent whose dd did PE and got a slightly lower result than most of the rest who is pleased they did it though as it kept the child active for two years longer than they would otherwise have been. Girls in particular often drop out of sport as soon as they can if they don't have a reason to keep it up.

If it were my child:

History - definite
Latin - definite as he has included it on every list

Third one is the tricky one:

Spanish - very useful, MFL GCSEs are pretty easy and is handy alongside the Latin.

RE - if the syllabus is interesting to him then this could be a nicer softer option.

Ancient Greek - tricky one. The grammar is very different from that in Latin (bit like difference between Italian and German) so while the two go well together if you want to go on to do Classics, they aren't mutually helpful in the way Latin/Spanish are.

(I did AG and Latin myself - Latin and Ancient History to A' Level so basing some of my thoughts on this)

What is the other MFL he's studying? French?

None of them are bad choices (all good solid subjects) - if the RS is more about philosphy, ethics and world religions then I might pick that, if it's like the old O' level which was a case of memorising the NT then I wouldn't.

I agree about doing one artistic/musical/whatever GCSE. If you have a stack of other 'hard' subjects it doesn't do you any harm at all and might actually benefit your other subjects by encouraging creativity and imagination, stimulating other parts of your brain.

Both mine are doing IGCSEs and have no controlled assessments at all. Everything is oriented towards the final exams at the end of Year 11.

They both do double, not triple, science, as they have been told that the double IGCSE award easily covers enough for them to go on to do science A levels if they wish. My daughter might do just this, as she is still considering medicine, but doesn't want to miss out on a humanities subject by doing the triple award.

Certainly dd's Art GCSE was her most time-demanding. But I think it's a good idea to have a hinterland.

Our school requires all students to take the same number of GCSEs (used to be 11, now 12), so with each DC I've suggested Art or Drama as a subject to take to get away from the ordinary classroom setting for a change. Only one of seven DC hasn't done that (wanted to do German instead).

The problem with doing a load of the softer GCSEs on top of 8 or 9 core ones is the extra work. I think PE is not just throwing a few balls around. it may be a load of extra learning and it may detract from your marks in the core GCSEs. If you ge AAA in PE, drama and cooking but that means you get CCC in English, maths and French that's a huge risk.

Yes DontEvenThinkAboutIt DD2 had 10 other "traditional" academic GCSEs including two languages so a bit of dancing about as light relief was a good thing.

Yellowtip - yes, I think all geography GCSEs involve both physical and human geography, even though both my DS and MissMarples' DS might wish otherwise. Unfortunately the A-level seems to be 50/50 too, which will probably put DS off taking it, even though the human side of it is pretty much his favourite subject, and might be highly relevant to some degree courses he might be interested in.

Dance, PE etc are great GCSE's if you are also doing the normal academic subjects even for top Uni's. I haven't seen any evidence or suggestion otherwise.

(happy to be corrected as always, ...... but really sure that's the correct info)

Nicolajr20 - DD2 did Dance GCSE and I'm sure it didn't make the slightest bit of difference to her university application.

My daughter is pretty bright and also loves her sport. Is there any downside come uni application time if she takes PE, as long as the rest of her subjects are the more traditional ones?

Sorry Yellowtip, what I meant was actually check the syllabus rather than making the decision on the basis of what mum/dad/grandma say will be studied under a subject title.

Going against the grain here- is he interested in doing a Tec subject?

Surely all GCSE Geography students do both? (mine did).

That's very bad luck if you have a high turnover of staff Marples. If it's either/or, again perhaps that's different. But I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say a 'decision shouldn't be made on the basis of what mum/dad/grandma studies under the banner of a subject title' . Why does what mum/dad/grandma did have anything to do with it?

That is interesting exexpat my DS was the precise opposite. He was all up to study Geography when he thought he would be studying earthquakes and deserts but lost all interest when he found out that it was human/political Geography!

Of course it's better if you're interested in the particular narrow topic in the first place but not doing the subject at all because it's not immediately appealing is another. I guess it might indicate insufficient interest in the subject as a whole though, so on that basis perhaps give it a miss.

Yellowtip, while I agree that the decision shouldnt be a shallow one it is well worth looking into the syllabus to see what will be studied. The decision shouldnt be made on the basis of what mum/dad/grandma studied under the banner of a subject title.

If the choice is Geography or History in the core subjects (this is how my DCs school does it) then choose the one that sounds most interesting. In my DCs school there is a high turnover of staff which has a knock on effect in teaching effectiveness.

I think the syllabus does matter in history and geography. I did history o-level and hated it: we studied nothing after 1840. History then formed a fairly substantial part of my degree, but that was history of countries and eras I was interested in.

DS is lucky that his history course is all 20th century, as he is very interested in modern politicial issues, and many of them arise out of 20th century history (admittedly, some of the roots are even older). If he had to spend half his time studying the tudors, he would hate it. And when it comes to geography, he loves the human/political geography side of things, does extra reading etc, but even his excellent teacher can't get him to be enthusiastic about erosion and glaciers.