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

Adding a subject for light relief not only does no harm but is actually a very good thing MissMarples but I disagree a little with your suggestion that students generally keen on History or Geography should ditch the idea if the particular subjects in the syllabus don't immediately grab their interest - that shows a rather closed mind. The chances are that, given a decent teacher, they'll find almost any topics pretty interesting once they get into them. The decent teacher caveat is pretty crucial though I suppose.

Agree mordion triple science isn't necessary for anything (unless your sixth form is one of the rare ones that insists on it for science A levels). And especially if children are going to do slightly fewer GCSEs with the new terminal rules it means children are less likely to do an extra language or humanity which are just as valuable (if not more so) imo.

There has been quite a lot of change in the last year. As I understand it there has been a review of equivalences which means that there is less advantage to schools or students to go down the BTEC route simply to acquire a high GCSE equivalency count.

However, BTECs may be exactly the right thing for study of a more practical topic where a theoretical study would be inappropriate.

My DS is going through GCSE selection now. The school is very low performing (3000/4000 in the good times 3800/4000 in the bad times which are now). This school does differentiate the initial subject offerings to students depending on current achievement and assessment of academic potential. Academic students are guided more to academic subjects, less academic students are directed to more practical subjects.

However, this is guidance only. Students are allowed to go against that guidance if they can explain their reasoning and where appropriate make commitments.

I have known a number of very academic students do a very non-academic subject as a kind comic relief from all the heavyweight study. Adding a subject done for fun to a strongly academic range does no harm.

The thing that continues to amaze me is the new orthodoxy that all bright kids have to do 3 sciences.

The golden age was only those very few chidlren who did do school certificate. In the UK in 2013 half of children cannot pass 5 GCSEs. The average IQ is 100. Clearly for some children my grammar school list and indeed the list most academic private school children do is not going to be right for all children.

However I do get concerned that some schools do not explain that most bright children do in essence something similar to my list in the best schookls, employers expect to see that and if instead your list has only 2 or 3 academic subjects and then a lot of software ones you have problem. My local comp has 8% of children doing 5 core GCSEs in the traditional subjects. I had thought they had got better recently than the 34% A - C at GCSE they usually obtain (and isn't London supposed to be doing much better in state schools these days too....)... now I can see why - they are all doing childcare, tourism and motor mechanics GCSEs - but that 8% might be absolutely fine. They may well mostly have an IQ of 90 and the fact they are getting any exams at all could be a huge achievement.

I think you have to be careful of harking back to some sort of theoretical golden age of education and trying to replicate that. The syllabuses for all subjects have changed markedly.

The best thing is for your DS to look at the actual content and ask himself if that is what he wants to study for two years.

In subjects like History & Geography there is no time to study the whole subject to great depth. Instead the syllabus tends to focus on a small number of topics. If the topic is of interest then fine but if not the subject could be a trying bore!

If your child is an all-rounder it probably doesn't matter and a wide choice will be best, but as Xenia says, if you've got a budding doctor, make sure he has the 3 sciences.

Mine was artistic - turns out that she's doing brilliantly in sciences and very badly in art and music.

I'd say take as many extras as you can.

It doesn't matter. Let him choose based on what he enjoys, which teachers he likes and even, what his mates are doing.

Also if you look at the 1940s subjects grammar school children did for school certificate they were english lang, english lit, maths, a language, history , geog and a couple or 2 sciences and probably RE. Those are really good basic GCSEs to have even in 2013 in my view and just about what my siblings did and all my children. LInguists do more than one language and potential doctors etc make sure they do 3 sciences.

I think you should let him do what he wants to do, cut the least useful subject I guess.

You can easily become knowledgeable in history through reading without taking exams in it. Far moreso than geography. I never did history beyond yr 9 and neither did my dc though we all did geography. I don't feel our education suffered. We all chose other subjects, an extra language, science or another humanity and were all happy with our choices.

I'd certainly prefer a child of mine to do geog than media studies or PE or business studies (to take 3 examples). But if, say, Latin was an alternative then I'd prefer that, without a shadow of a doubt. DD1 thinks geog is great though, so what do I know!

History, though, is absolutely vital for any educated civilized person.

Lots of ways to skin a cat Mordion but hist and geog are a pretty good way, especially where options are limited.

Even in my day I could do History at A level having not done it at GCSE.

Gcse options lead to A level options and a levels lead to uni. Also, history sucks.

I'm surprised a school would allow someone to do an a level in something they didn't do at GCSE.

I did history and geography and so did all the older children except one who didn't do history and later she said she wished she had done it so I will encourage the younger ones to do both as they will only do one language.

Just wanted to echo what SanityClause says.

Having looked at many sixth forms in the last few weeks, for History and RS there is no GCSE requirement of same subject. A few wanted any humanity, all a B in English Language. For Geography, some insisted on GCSE, others any humanity.

So could be closing that door by not taking Geography, depending on school.

Look at the requirements for A levels or IB.

For example, at DD1's school, you don't need GCSE History to do A Level or IB history. You don't need three sciences to study three sciences at A level/IB. You don't need IGCSE Further Maths to do A level /IB Further Maths..... You get the picture.

His core subjects should cover just about everything he wants to do. The only exceptions are things like Drama and Art and MFL, where a progression of knowledge is needed.

So, he should do the subjects 1. he likes and 2. he is best at.

At the GCSE stage IMO the student is starting to show their preference.

The 'free' options allow the student to indicate which direction they might take at A level (without making that direction compulsory). The linguist would want to have an extra MFL. The politician would probably want an extra humanity.

Choosing an extra MFL or an extra humanity or whatever will not force the student down one route or another.

DD1 is doing both hist and geog for GCSE and has chosen them in her A level options too. That having said, I did history O and A level but I didn't do geography past the 3rd year and I really don't think there is much wrong with the breadth of my education.

Agree. My seven eldest have all done/ are doing hist and geog.

I think where possible do both history and geography for a broad education.

On the Ebac I just noticed in today's Times and league tables and my local comp has 8% of children getting it (in other words doing a good range of core subjects) and about 80 - 100% with the private schools. Amazing difference.

"DS did IGCSEs and had extra exams for French and Science to cover parts which would have been done by a controlled assessment otherwise, so I think in UK schools there will normally be some element of coursework/controlled assessment in those subjects at least."

DS is doing iGCSE's in all sciences in an English school. Definitely no controlled assessment but a practical paper as part of the final exam in year 11.

AAAARRGGHH
DCs school is an academy converter. Since they stopped having the LEA looking over their shoulder they have utterly gone off the boil.
Languages down from 5 to 2
And now it looks like they are going to drop Latin as an option as its "too hard to timetable"
Am very tempted to report them to Ofsted and the Dfe for backsliding.