2014 GCSE league tables

I think your lack of familiarity with GCSEs possibly means that you don't quite get what's meant in terms of language used, or approach, horsemadmom.

Also, as everyone knows, there are shedloads of graduates out there looking for jobs, but in the very highly competitive, or even middlingly competitive, fields then a lack of analytical or critical thinking would be a killer. I would be really pissed off if all my kids had done at school was learn by rote. I just completely disagree with what you say and wouldn't regard them as remotely 'educated' if that's all they'd taken from school.

This following is advice given to Oxford applicants in relation to interviews: 'An ability to deal with unfamiliar material, or with unfamiliar approaches to familiar material, is more likely to impress us than a simple encyclopaedic knowledge of your subject'.

The wider skills of, for example, being able to evaluate the quality of competing sources of information, are certainly useful (vital in many walks of life although apparently not all...) and will be so whether or not you know the date of the Magna Carta.

I interview lots of graduates and what gets you hired (in the city) is having analytical and communication skills and being able to apply knowledge to particular situations. I neither know nor care whether our graduate trainees know the date of Magna Carta. I don't know it myself, I studied British social and economic history c18-c20 for O level, and British and European history c17 for A level.

The schools at the top don't need to trumpet as their results are consistently excellent. My DC's schools use mostly IGCSE and a handful of GCSE depending on which they feel is most challenging. I don't believe for a moment that they choose IGCSE because 'it's easier'. I have seen GCSE maths and English papers but only because my DD's prep used them for 11+ practice and she didn't find them much of a stretch. She thought that the CE papers were tougher. One of the main reasons that DC's schools gave for using IGCSE was that the marking was more reliable and less open to gov't interference. I'm afraid this was bourne out in our experience as we had to have one of the two GCSE papers my son took remarked and his grade went up by 12 marks and well into the next grade boundary!
There seems to be some confusion on here about the simplicity of the language in IGCSE questions and what they are examining. The IGCSE taken in UK schools is for UK SCHOOLS. It is not the version taken abroad which assumes a non-native speaker is taking the exam. Parents who chose the traditional education offered in indies want their children to learn facts, figures, dates etc. The IGCSE tests actual, learned knowledge. The 'wider skills' that Draylon refers to aren't actually of much use if you haven't learned the date of Magna Carta and why it was written or thoroughly understood the language used in Macbeth or learned all the formulae for calculating the area and volume of shapes. The GCSE punishes those who apply more advanced knowledge beyond what ticks the boxes to questions. Additionally to Draylon's post, DH interviews a lot of graduates and I can assure you that the 'soft skills' taught in most schools and hammered in via fluffy exams mean nothing. Knowing actual facts makes you an educated person and gets you hired.

surreygoldfish our experience precisely (may be the same school )

GB rather pleasingly they all say the vast houses aren't homey, and they much prefer ours. Ha!

summerends I'm usually definitely one for hard facts too but I can't demand that here. The subject came up again yesterday, in the course of things, so I didn't even go out of my way :)

Interesting stuff about language. It's caused real problems for those at the top end who 'overthink' the GCSE questions, not just in maths.

Thanks Molio but I still am lacking my hard facts (doubting Thomas). You have however gone beyond the call of duty!
Draylon you made me laugh with your example questions. That is exactly my impression of GCSE science and maths questions from the DC who is doing them, students need two sets of skills, the curriculum based one and a further skill in trying to understand exactly what the question requires from the phrasing in opaque English. The IGCSE in those subjects plus languages (not a clue about English) from what my DCs tell me requires slightly more material to be covered and more analysis but the questions are phrased more clearly.

My DC are at a high achieving day independent. Mainly do IGCSEs because the school believes it's better preparation for A level - the average grade at A level is an A and a good number go to Oxbridge each yr and nearly all to highly regarded universities. Marketing of GCSE results is just way down the agenda - it's just assumed that they will achieve at this level. They're stretched and they work hard. Maybe it's different at a 'top' boarding school (I don't know - only have experience of 'day' schools' but we're paying for the education and quality of school experience not a list of contactS.

In schools, the parents are irrelevant, it is the DC we are looking at. Some get the work ethic from home - great - they achieve. Many do not - those are the ones we constantly work our socks off to get to see that it matters.
Which contradicts most research into differences in educational attainment.

GB I think you missed the point that it is DC work ethic I refer to , not the parents. In schools, the parents are irrelevant, it is the DC we are looking at. Some get the work ethic from home - great - they achieve. Many do not - those are the ones we constantly work our socks off to get to see that it matters.

Signora The work ethic is astounding at my DD's state school. Way way in excess of anything I managed even at my most worky.

Many people who can afford private school either do so because they qualify for bursaries (so not that high earning), or have assets independent of their income from paid employment (so, inherited capital or wealthy still living parents). So I'm not sure that your work ethic theory holds much water (and it is actually a bit rude). I do not think it's sensible to assume that someone who has inherited wealth as a result of the 80s/90s property boom in the south east, but who has a moderately remunerative job, can automatically be assumed to have a better work ethic than someone who came from nothing and has a highly remunerative career but no funds other than income from employment. Obviously there are examples of people with stratospherically remunerative careers - who came from nothing or little - who can afford to pay eye watering fees without an injection of capital from other sources and their work effort must be phenomenal. But they aren't the only people who send their kids to private schools.

I have never been to a party in a vast house. :(

I have done some cool things as a result of knowing some of the people I met at oxbridge though, and to be honest - it's nothing to do with my talent or effort (both of which have always been, frankly, minimal. Just pure dumb luck.

Not sure if it was this or another thread, but someone wisely said ' Hey, how about commenting on school you actually have DC at, rather than those you don't...'
Agree with Molio. Have DC at one of those 'big name' schools. but the 'big name' is irrelevant (as the houses etc - the DC usually aren't in them...).
The DC get strettttttttttttched at these at schools and work incredibly hard.
I would love to see all DC working as hard as this. I teach in the state sector, and it is really hard to get the work ethic across. Some do already have it, from home, and those are a complete joy. We (teachers) do everything we can to instil a work ethic in all students, but some really do not get it, because, sadly the home environment trumps us.
I (like other teacher I work with) will continue to seek new ways to get the DC to work (because being 'bright' is a given - it's work that gets them to Oxbridge/Russell group) - would be great id we were supported in this.

TalkinPeace your comment about 'big name' schools is only slightly less ignorant than your comment about 'big name' unis. What exactly do you mean when you say 'they are about the doors that open only to those with the right information'? Are you stuck in an '80's nepotistic time warp? I would call Winchester, Westminster, the two St Paul's, and Eton (in reverse alphabetical order) the 'big name' schools (because presumably you include no state schools in this Old Boy elite), and Oxford and Cambridge (also rao) the 'big name' unis (caveat: as a very rough first draft). All provide a phenomenal education which goes beyond both exam results and nepotism. From what you say you lack direct experience of both groups so I'm puzzled at to how you feel equipped to comment. Until you do have that experience, perhaps try not to diminish what these kids achieve - because these days it's mostly through their own talent and efforts. Certainly the fact that my kids now go to parties in vast houses both in the UK and abroad has neither turned their heads nor helped then secure the jobs they've secured - the other rich kids are just friends. 'Big name' unis are actually a really good leveller.

summerends. Confirmed today - generally easier. Of course clearly that's not a view adopted by the paying experts on here, but I'm happy to adopt it myself :) I think the old modular programme and endless re-sits has muddied the argument. So a few years ago it might have been plausible for schools to claim the IGCSE was more rigorous, but only when comparing it to a GCSE taken in modules which were re-sat and re-sat. But like for like (linear), then easier - apparently, and across the board.

Just responding to your 'facts' Talkin - I've absolutely no idea which primary school your dc went to but all the progress figures for the senior school are on the DFE website - they make up the value added score - any drop of !0% is something to be concerned about especially if similar schools in the area have remained fairly static.

Dunno, Look at their websites.
DCs school mainly used it for English (where the changes hit them so hard) and Maths.

And please, stop placing such reliance on the progress figures.
Having been a governor at their primary school - I assume you know which one as you track everything else about me - I know that the Raiseonline data was utter bilge.

It tends to be the more academic private schools and grammar schools up here who use IGCSEs in various subjects - the non-academic private schools don't seem to use them at all. The maths progress for the set 3s at your school seems to have gone down by 10% this year Talkin - perhaps they found the IGCSEs harder? Do the comps use IGCSEs for science and languages?

On a much more prosaic level, the private selective in my town made a great hoo hah about using the I as proof they were more rigorous
which all went ever so quiet when the set 3's at the comps started sitting the same exam (in Maths BTW)

Middling private schools whose niche is to get middling kids through the system with above middling grades were always conning the parents as to how bright little Jocasta and Darius were.
The only difference between them and the comp kids was parental wealth and the choice on where to throw it.

Big Name schools are not really about exam results - same as big name Unis - they are about the doors that open only to those with the right information.

If you read the St Paul's website it says that they were one of the first schools in the UK to introduce the IGCSEs because they found them more rigorous than GCSEs and better preparation for A levels. Maybe St Paul's feel that English IGCSE has lost it's rigour or maybe boys and English don't mix that well, I'm only guessing?
I agree that quite a lot of schools seem to be choosing English language IGCSE for whatever reason but I'm not sure it's the same for any other subjects is it?

If anyone wants to see some good marketing for maths and science IGCSEs they only have to look at the St Paul's School website; www.stpaulsschool.org.uk/academic
The IGCSE at St Paul's has led on to 70 As at Maths A level (plus 46 As), more members of the UK International Maths Olympiad team than any other school, 66 entries in the Cambridge Chemistry Challenge (plus a bunch of gold and silver medals), prizes in Physics and Biology, 52 Oxbridge offers this year and 8 Ivy League offers. I think they've done a rather good job of convincing fee paying parents that they offer a superior education with IGCSEs. Interestingly, the boys also take IGCSEs in modern languages but not English - but that might be because it's a boy's school and it's easier for boys to get an A in English with a GCSE?