Will new GCSE's bring a halt to Social Mobility?

I am a bit confused by this debate. DD has done a few early entry exams both GCSE and IGCSE. For all of these exams we got an overall grade and then the breakdown of marks in each section of the paper giving a total percentage. So presumably University admissions departments can already distinguish between the 100% A and the 85% A - or am I missing something?

The whole point is that an A* didn't distinguish between the bright and the extremely bright.

So what? Oxford admission uses a reasonable number of A and A* grades as a first-cut filter, but pays far more attention to aptitude tests, submitted work and (of course) interview. Cambridge admission doesn't even do that, using AS UMS as the main discriminant (quite what they're going to do going forward is something of a mystery). Russell Group admissions just want you to have some GCSEs, and might impose a slightly higher requirement on maths GCSE for maths-but-we-don't-demand-A-Level courses. The main factor, for everyone, is predicted A level grades (for offers) and actual A level grades (for actual admission).

There are some exceptions, but even then the "you have to have all A*" courses exist mostly in the imagination of parents: even things like medicine just want you to have a bunch of A or better.

I don't think so. I think top pupils, the kind Oxbridge etc are looking for, will still get 9s in the state system.

The whole point is that an A didn't distinguish between the bright and the extremely bright. Not that the state system didn't have very bright pupils. That way more pupils got As than pupils who could go to Oxbridge.

Oxbridge already look at context (i.e. the avg GCSE grade at the school you went to) when deciding who to interview, so I would expect them to still do so. Which may mean that at some state schools you only need 8s not 9s to get an interview.

In the post-war to the 70s when there was a similar numerical scale for O levels, there was also a breakthrough rise in the number of state educated pupils attending university.

Of course, there were grammar schools, or schools which had lately been grammars across the country then.

"Won't a more challenging curriculum do jack shit unless the quality of education improves too?"

There are plenty of state school kids who are completely unchallenged by the existing national curriculum. State primaries have raised their game substantially in the past few years. When those primary school children get to secondary they will be ready for more challenging work. My six year old is miles ahead of where my son was at her age because she has had far better phonics teaching.

The quality of education will improve if research is used to decide educational policy rather than the whims of politicans.

I totally agree that you can make a success of your life with or without qualifications - what I was specifically wondering whether the doors to Oxbridge, Medicine, Vetmed and the like which require the highest grades to gain access

There is no world in which levels of private education in universities increases. For a wide range of reasons, but not least that (a) Les Ebdon has big teeth and (b) TEF - all the usual caveats about if it happens and what it looks like, but let's work on the reasonable assumption that it will and it's going to be rough - is probably going to look at value-add. A university which get even further into "we only take students with particular qualifications and, whoops, there goes our access" would take a pounding from many directions.

My ds starting secondary next year.
A lot to learn!
By the time he does A levels [or not...] will it be A, B, C etc I wonder.
So with this GCSE numbering, is 8 an A and 4 a C and 9 an A*?
Guess I'd better google!
Do think university will hopefully not be the be all and end all in years to come and other options will become more and more respected.
Thinking in straight lines does not always equate with success or happiness as far as I can see.

Reallytired

Won't a more challenging curriculum do jack shit unless the quality of education improves too?

I do think long term it could be beneficial, just because if the UK is to be measured against international standards (new Grade 5 aligning with PISA) then there is less scope for grade inflation / manipulation. And the state system will not be allowed to continue to look this embarrassingly bad compared to the rest of the world.

I think the net result MAY be that proportionally fewer Comp students end up with places. But then I imagine either universities will apply reverse discrimination to a greater extent, or the government will come up with some other barmy scheme to negate the effect.

There are plenty of comprehensive kids who get their raft of As and As - why do you think that the new 9 (an A*, I think?) is beyond their reach? I sort of see what you're saying, but I think you're being unduly pessimistic. Not that I see much point in the changes.

I think that the scrapping of tiered GCSEs, crappy and useless "vocational" alternatives will help social mobility no end. A more challenging curriculum will make people better educated.

My son is a guinea pig for the new GCSEs. I have to believe that even if he fails half his subjects there will be opportunities if he wants to later on in life. Going to a private school guarantees nothing. Qualifications aren't everything.