AIBU to want my son to take 11 GCSEs?

My daughter's at a grammar school, in year 9 where the pupils have to do 10 GCSEs, a basic ASDAN qualification and have already completed the ECDL course. She has elected to do an extra language which is not generally allowed at the school. Many private schools in our area on do 9 GCSEs with no choice of extras. 10 is a perfectly fine number of GCSEs.

I have a BA in Law. Most law degrees aren't BAs. So much is just nomenclature. Of course decent science degrees aren't more rigorous than arts degrees, it's purely down to the institution as all decent universities and employers know. Scientists seem so insecure: why?

Bloody iPad. Given the CHOICE. Not the check.

Teacher Well - they invented degrees. So one could say the quirks are from the new institutions. :)

For many kids facing time constraints (especially in a future of all terminal exams) double maths might be a better thing to do than triple science. Or, to be honest, one out of chem, biol or physics. Better to do one or two sciences properly than three more shallowly. DD1 is doing double maths and triple science but given the choice she would have not done chemistry. And given the check knowing what I know now, I'd have preferred her to do 11 rather than 12.

I have a BA. In a 'hard' science subject. Strange quirks of ancient academic institutions.

Some universities don't offer BScs of course.

And I clearly do know best about what is best for kids who don't want to follow science based careers. And thats all I've every claimed. Although, also I clearly know best about what is required for eg a music degree. And since Erebus you have yourself said in another thread that in your ideal world your DC Would do two do sciences properly and not do the third, you obviously actually agree with me. Although you don't want to admit it.

I am inclined to believe that the reason shite BA courses sprang up is because of a combination of shite govt. policy and attitudes like yours rather than despite them.

I am very proud of my BA (course established decades before Blair), and now, 10 years on I have been continuously employed and I don't know anyone from my course who isn't currently employed.

Hymph. I have a BA in geography. Admittedly, I managed to be under-employed for 4 months this year.

If he is bright then he should be aiming for a full set of As .'A' s are a bit meh, much easier to get than As
Anything that distracts him from that should be discouraged

Apparently graduates of golf management degrees have some of the highest employment statistics in the country. Just sayin' (though I agree with your general point).

hello OP.

I think what many parents fail to see, is its their dcs choice what they do in terms of GCSE's. They are already restricted in terms of what schools expect/demand them to take. Having to choose from certain groups of subjects etc.
Having been through it twice now, I have learned that with the best will in the world they will get what they want to out of the process. Uni's only ask for 5 GCSE's anyway, and schools are compelled to suggest more to ensure the dc can choose the best of those results for applications.
Considering some subjects carry more than one exam and coursework, it seems logical and advisable for the bright ones to take fewer and concontrate on getting the best results they can, rather than sprading their abilities too thinly across a multitude of subjects.

No, seriously, I certainly don't consider all arts degrees to be worthless, of course not, but it is interesting how many of the mad, crazy 'degree' courses that sprang up under Tony Blair when 'all shalt have degrees' were arts degrees, not science.

And by and large, it isn't the B.Sc awarding courses in our universities that are closing now people are doing a cost/benefit analysis of their degree, it's B.A offering ones.

The point I am making isn't that all B.A.s are useless but you will tend to find a proliferation of useless, non-rigorous pseudo-degrees concentrated towards the Arts end of the college! With science, you with know it or you don't- there's no room for liberal and sometimes over-generous 'interpretation' of 'the facts'.

FWIW, I was going to do Geography at uni, back in 1980 (that's how old I am!) and was urged to do the B.Sc, not the B.A though both were on offer.

I get that an English or History degree from a RG uni will have rigour, integrity and real value, but 'golf-course management' and 'surfing studies' were also B.A.s!

What did the liberal arts graduate say to the science graduate?

"You bastard. How do you think the chip feels about it?"

TheRealFellatio it depends what you're aiming for but obviously for some universities and some degrees it's much more than grades in just the core subjects that count. And the number of GCSEs as well as the grades achieved will be looked at the context of the school attended at the time.

Sadly- that's what the woman Arts graduate says to the woman science graduate. The conversation between men will still be very different.

You all really know that the question, by the time they are both mid 30s, is:

What did the arts graduate say to the science graduate?

How's potty training going?

:)

Erebus, I know you jest, but do you really think an Arts degree is so worthless?

I agree. All this angst seems daft to me.

To be honest I don't think it matters whether you do 9, 10 11 or 45.

It's the grades in the core subjects that matter.

What did th philosophy graduate say to the science graduate?

Why do you want fries with that?

Absolutely Iknow and Abra1d - fine line, grey area and all that. However in this specific case it would seem that a parent is right in sharing their opinion with a child, but leaving the child to make the final decision. In the end, it doesn't actually matter on any real level whether the boy takes 10 or 11 GCSEs - his mother has a valid opinion on the subject but not the right to chose for him, which is her opinion too. Once he has committed to his GCSE choices, she can then find the right balance between advising him to work harder/ nagging him/ enforcing time spent at his desk, or leaving him to find his own path :)

Yorks - it's because Russian knows best.

I, too, have been spanked for my temerity in suggesting that if triple science is available, and if a DC doesn't have particular talents in another area (where I can see MFL x 2, or History, or Geog might be more useful, along with double science) then they should do triple. As I also said, if their broad and high ability encompasses art/photography/drama/music, well, actually, a person with true and genuine ability in this stuff doesn't need a GCSE in it to 'get ahead', unlike in the other mentioned subjects. I wouldn't be 'wasting' a GCSE spot on those under those circumstances.

A DC with triple science, a humanity, eng x 2, maths, a MFL and something 'arty' or 'techie' can get into a B.A course. But a DC with core science, maybe an average double, but arts/humanities galore will find it harder to get into a B.Sc.

Something not being touched on in the 'double is all you need' debate is the fact the double taker has done 33% less of that science prior to A level than the triple taker. They have a fair bit of ground to catch up on.

Q: (because I'm feeling controversial ):

What did the Arts graduate say to the Science graduate?

"Do you want fries with that?"

Sorry.

'If anyone can work out the optimum balence of suggesting/advising/nagging/telling/enforcing etc in relation to Teens then please let me know .'

That would be something worth more than any number of science GCSEs.

Russian you seem to be trying quite hard to be offensive. I cannot see which bit of my comment can possibly be classified as witless orthodoxy. The lack of science and engineering graduates globally is well researched, quantified and detailed in reports such as the recent US jobs report and the MGI report on global employment. The better preparation for a science career of doing three GCSEs is obvious, as you have agreed yourself.

You can choose to differ on whether an academically strong child who will not follow a science career (how do you know this at 14? What percentage of people on this thread are doing the same job they started doing at 22 or whatever?) is better off with 2 or 3 science GCSEs, but you really cannot label my comment that we should be encouraging our able children to equip themselves for the jobs which are most in demand - or at least create that option - as "witless orthodoxy." If you'd labelled a comment like "you must have three sciences to get into Cambridge" then I'd get it.

And if they are doing 10 or so GCSEs - which i think we have all concurred is the minimum likely for these very able children - they can still in addition do a Mfl, 2 English, maths, history, geography and a other subject such as another Mfl, latin, music, art, dt or whatever floats their boat. So we have in no way encouraged them to be too narrow.

I wonder why this topic has become quite so, um, strongly felt?

If anyone can work out the optimum balence of suggesting/advising/nagging/telling/enforcing etc in relation to Teens then please let me know .

I seek - and am given - sensible parental advice even now, and I'm in my 40s!

A child of 14 is still a child. They do not have the perspective to see the impact all their decisions might have. A parent - in an entirely age-appropriate way - can and should be supplying this context and perspective. I agree that it may be a shift from 'telling' to 'advising', but surely that is a shift begun much younger and varies every day depending on the context. I tell my 12 year old that he must restrict his computing time. I advise him wear suncream. He independently completes his homework and decides when to do it.

In the same way, parents can tell a child what GCSEs they are likely to need for the next stage in their education. They can advise on how to decide on the best ones, in conjunction with the school. The child can independently decide whether or not to work at each subject (and will take the consequences)