Is igcse science a lot harder than GCSE science

ontop best preparation in each subject for what? For exams? For A levels? For getting into university? For marketing? For inspiring fascination in the subject? That doesn't rule out them choosing 'easier' courses. Indeed an 'easier' GCSE might allow more room to study specific things in more depth or add interest and challenge to their education, especially if the other option involves copious amounts of dull coursework. Or they might provide a more logical step onto A levels in the way the subject is taught. But I doubt the school would think 'let's do this exam because it will be harder for our students to get good grades.'

My son is doing the AQA GCSE 9-1 Separate Sciences. I don't think they are hard enough. I am giving him stretch questions from CIE O level and CIE IGCSE questions to stretch him. School has acquiesced to this. I still think our science GCSEs are light, and they require use of everyday vocabulary rather than scientific terminology

Blaeberry, in many highly selective schools the end game isn't the GCSE results but the university places, so courses are chosen to optimise those outcomes. I suppose it's possible that the school is lying to us about the reason for choosing its syllabuses and that we are all simply gullible because we are paying. On the other hand, it's possible that the school is telling us the truth and does pick by subject and specification to offer the best preparation in each subject for its students.

You are right in so far as the school is definitely teaching into A level territory before GCSEs where appropriate.

I don't really care whether IGCSEs are harder or easier or exactly the same. I only care that my children appear to be getting an extremely challenging and interesting education.

I firstly responded because of a previous poster's assertion that her daughter had told her that all the private school pupils had struggled at A level, which seemed not only an odd conversation to have (though I guess everyone's home life is different) but very unlikely to be true - unless those private school students were all the ones who'd been kicked out for not making the grade anyway or they weren't at very selective private schools or weren't particularly academic anyway.

I'm not sure parents who pay "like to assume IGCSE is better" but I do think we get fed up of being told it's much easier and that independent schools only do it to make their results look good.

As I posted some time ago, my kids' school moved to IGCSEs in the maths and sciences years ago when GCSEs were modular and there was more coursework. They preferred a final exam structure as it they felt it better suited their students' needs. They do a mixture of GCSEs and IGCSEs according to the syllabus in each one and review the specs every year.

I imagine top private schools will teach iGCSEs because they a) give the best results and b) fits in with their teaching style right up to A level. I certainly wouldn't expect a school that sells itself on results to purposely choose a more difficult option for their students. I would, however, expect the school to challenge more able pupils by exposing them to A level work during the iGCSE and not letting the curriculum limit them once they have reached an understanding equivalent to the top grade. I would also expect keen pupils in a super-selective school to skip past any difference in GCSE/iGCSE 'level' within the first five minutes of covering that curricula topic.

It is easier to get a C in IGCSE which is why many state schools started to do them. The concept was that selective and private school had no issue with their pupils at C grade due to only taking capable children.
The government cottoned on to this and stopped IGCSE from being included in the league tables. IGCSE was set up for pupils abroad and the terminology is less complex hence lower ability pupils being able to access it.
Parents who pay like to assume IGCSE is better. Parents who don't like to think it is easier and gives an advantage. Both sets of parents are both right and wrong.
Personally I believe until 1 exam is sat by all pupils this argument is pointless.

Draylon* It also interests me how many people not paying for education like to believe that because the independent sector are doing it it must inferior and only being done because it's easier so their pupils will get better results.

I generally think the AQA igcses (Certificates) are harder than legacy GCSEs. New single science GCSEs 9-1 will be considered same standards as AQA IGCSE.

I think the CIE IGCSE is harder than the AQA igcse. There is a big fuss about the presumed rigour of the 9-1 GCSEs. It's a matter of perspective. They are only harder because the content of GCSEs, since the Blair era, has been light.

IGCSE Science is currently available to the comprehensive masses. I have taught them in a comprehensive, and DS is doing them in a comprehensive. I have also taught A level to students with both IGCSES and GCSEs. No disadvantage with IGCSE. Probably a starting advantage in A level Chemistry and Physics (although it evens out). The debate around the C/D borderline is irrelevant for Science A levels.

Sorry mistype (actually it wasn't its the MN emphasis thingy) 50% achieved at least the equivalent of A* A at Pre U in math further math and physics all sat ICGSE in these subjects.

That's what I was trying to say, happy. It wouldn't make sense for schools like that to disadvantage their pupils. In Y10 at my sons' school something like 70 kids got a Gold in one of the junior science challenge things. They won't all be going to extracurricular science clubs.

Pique your right many super selectives to do run math clubs etc as an extra curricular;ar activity DS2 never attended one as it was popular with those without any other interests except math/science math/science geniuses neither did the majority of his friends. I guess it was those who did who were in the Olympiad things, as quite a few over the years represented UK in international competitions. Although I accept that the IGCSE syllabus may not be responsible for this I struggle to accept that it was a hinderance it just doesn't make sense.

Considering the difficulty of CE, top independent schools are going to have no problems getting kids to a higher knowledge level at age 16 than state schools.
Hopefully new GCSEs will help state school kids make a smoother transition to A-levels.

I did O level maths and new GCSE maths doesn't contain all the topics that we did eg. Calculus but I've noticed that they are very wordy.

they wouldn't be getting eg the highest number of Golds in the Biology Olympiad if the syllabus was so weak.

I don't see why the syllabus would necessarily be responsible for that.

One of the better debates around grammars (last year and not here) was around 'critical mass'. The principle is that if you select you have a higher proportion of chiildren who are subject-enthusiasts and those various school-side academic 'clubs' become more feasible.

I saw that in action recently at DD's comp which is mixed-SES with a quite substantial contingent from the 'right-side of tracks' and seems roughly national average in terms of intake ability. Middling Comp. They started an after-school maths-club for two years, which is 450 children. It didn't clash with anything massively popular and just six children went to it. That club is the source of their current UKMT team and it's where the majority of the relevant extra-curricular maths happens.

I don't know but assume selectives, especially super-selectives, have better uptake with that kind of thing i.e. the critical mass required for a flourishing academic environment beyond the classroom.

"at 6th form the kids from private schools with the IGCSE struggled as they had not had a "non calculator" paper"
DS2's school does the harder Pre Us with the further math and physics considered to be exceptionally difficult, approx 50% last year got the equivalent of A*/A in both subjects at Pre U so clearly the IGCSE math/physics is not causing them to struggle.
Apparently sometimes international students either starting French/Latin or with very limited French/Latin in yr 9 sit the GCSE.

The supposedly easier to obtain C grade at IGCSE because of narrower boundaries etc is irrelevant to selective schools. At DS's school from 1545 IGCSE entries last year only 4 were grade C, and only 58 a grade B. Approx 80% of all entries were A* which is fairly typical for one of the London selective schools. When DS queried with his teacher why they didn't sit the GCSE for all languages as it was so much easier, but just for the challenge language they complete in a year, he was firmly told off and told taking the easy option shouldn't be necessary for boys at his school.
This is a school that gets 60 places to Oxbridge each year and it usually has the top or near top IB results in the world. His school is looking to challenge pupils not the easy option.
I am very happy with my DCs schools and IGCSEs. I think they have been a fantastic preparation for A levels and DS is having a nice easy time at AS.

Science IGCSEs have more content. The jump to A level is certainly not harder from them than from the 2010 specifications.

Cant, I get that, but it would be perverse of schools to increase their students workload post GCSE if they didn't need to. Frankly I don't much care. Maybe these schools are teaching beyond the syllabus anyway so the IGCSE or GCSE is just part of what they teach. The point about the (junior) Olympiads was that Y10 kids would not do well in them if their syllabus was impoverished.

The thing is, the iGCSE to A level leap will be like the 'double science to A level' leap - absolutely fine for schools that do it that way for all their pupils, because they will simply start their A-level teaching at a slightly different point, but much more difficult if a double scientist moves to a school which normally does triple science between GCSE and A-level.

I don't know anything about iGCSE, but i did just want to point out the fallacy that good A-level results must mean iGCSEs are equivalent or harder. As the schools that get excellent A-level results but only do double science show, what matters is teaching from an A-level start point that is the same as the GCSE end point, not the actual level of the GCSE qualification taken.

ontop
they are not setting their kids up to fail
if the kids stayed in their system I'm sure arses would be covered
but when they switch systems, the gaps sare highlighted

not sure what olymipads have to do with anything
DD got gold in hers and it was just a distraction from uni prep

What I didn't think stood up was the narrative that children who'd done IGCSE 'struggled' at A level, because I can't imagine that highly selective schools with top performers in science Olympiads etc are deliberately setting their pupils up to struggle. And they wouldn't be getting eg the highest number of Golds in the Biology Olympiad if the syllabus was so weak.

Stands up or not, it was the reality

and the fact that well funded schools who did IGCSE were geared up to cope with its gaps for A levels says nothing

DCs and theiir friends compared work books
It may well be that an A* at IGCE was harder to get
but I'm darned certain that C at IGCSE was a darned sight easier