Is igcse science a lot harder than GCSE science

Don't think that really stands up, as cake says, because the top selective private schools have used iGCSEs in many subjects for years (to avoid what they believed was pedestrian coursework and time-consuming modular exam structures, in maths and sciences particularly) and strangely their students are not struggling at A-level. You only need to look at their A-level results to see that. I have no idea if iGCSEs are harder, but they're obviously not significantly easier or disadvantageous otherwise highly academic schools which rest on their A-level results and leavers' destinations wouldn't choose to use them.

It has changed now because IGCSE is no longer valid for league tables
but at DCs comp IGCE was definitely regarded as the lesser qualification, used to bump middling kids over the D/C boundary

bright kids exclusively did the GCSE as it was regarded as better prep for A level

at 6th form the kids from private schools with the IGCSE struggled as they had not had a "non calculator" paper

Compared with the A* -G GCSEs (current y11), there is far more detail to be recalled, but more lenient grade boundaries. Less difference with new 9-1 in terms of recall required. Grade boundaries, who knows?

The Cambridge English IGCSE course is an odd one because there are so many different combinations you can take including rather stangely a speaking test. The easier options have a much higher pass mark supposedly. None of the selective schools I know follow that route, why would they? I think that is the one that it is much easier to pass at grade C, but that is not a grade that selective schools are looking for. It is particularly odd because Cambridge is generally known to have the hardest papers for other subjects e.g. maths.

I would agree that there is very little difference between IGCSE and AS level for languages, DS has been pleasantly surprised and is coasting along nicely.

The school I work in is non-selective in a fully selective area i.e. a secondary modern.

The couple of years we could enter pupils for iGCSE English our A*-C grades rocketed suggesting that at least the English qualification is much easier.

I think although I'm only going on what another poster once said whose DC was sitting GCSEs that the grade boundary for an A (obviously under the old system) is higher for IGCSE. DS had to get over 90% to get an A in IGCSE.
We also were able to compare GCSE science and IGCSE science as DS1 did the former DS2 that latter and it seemed harder, DS2 did a couple of practice AS papers for the scences and thought they were almost identical to the IGCSE (CIE board no course work) and IGCSE MFL's are definitely considered harder by MFL teachers, a few years ago DS2 looked (briefly) at transferring to our local 6th form college and was told that ICGSE in an MFL was the equivalent to an AS level.
I think the point that super selective use them so they are definitely not easier is valid. Why would you not want to prepare your pupils as best you can for A levels/pre Us? (the latter is acknowledged to be harder by UCAS).It would not be logical to let them enter easier exams unless you take the view that extra teaching/learning time created by an easier exam enables staff to teach outside the narrow confines of the exam curriculum which is of course what many parents/pupils and staff expect. Or an opportunity to start in yr 11 preparation for A level/Pre U.
But ultimately its all pretty irrelevant, with a few years no one cares whether you sat IGCSE or GCSE.

IGCSE's are definitely harder than normal GCSE's, they cover some of the a-level course and have less coursework so more to learn for the exam. Overall a lot harder and a lot more work

No I haven't read the items you posted because the first one invites me to open six further files and I have work to do. I don't think anyone has time to read through all of that.
I get fed up with the asumption that private schools are somehow cheating the system because where I live they are the top performing schools in the country and they don't need to. IGCSEs have given DS a great start for A levels and I feel very sorry for anyone attempting a MFL language after GCSE because the gap is vast which is probably contributing to why the numbers taking a language at A level have dropped so low.

I've re- read my post, it's the research that says this! Not me personally, I can see how you could have interpreted that as me being facetious. It wasn't meant like that. It is actually research. Other research says different, that's the point.

Cake, where do I say either is easier? They are different and suit students for different reasons. I've no doubt the school you are involved in is making the best choices for their students. My point is those choices aren't open to all. Your argument is overly simplistic. Have you read any of the research you asked for? I'd be interested (genuinely), in any research that supports your viewpoint? It's a mine field that schools are trying to navigate and remains contentious, and this is only likely to intensify in the forth coming years, when the reformed GCSE's start to yield results. My point is and remains, a simple statement of one is harder cannot be made. This is backed up by research, not simply if the top independents do it, it must be harder.
The best advice to the OP, is the student needs to prepare for the test as well as possible (obviously) and the predictability, lack of content change and interference from outside agencies is less with i, therefore this is something worth considering when deciding what to do.

I'm not being goady user, you are by suggesting that Indy schools are taking the easier option, when my point is that the top performing schools in the country are taking IGCSEs - they don't need easy options. Similarly some of them are opting for pre-U instead of A levels but not because pre-u is easier.
I accept that state schools cannot transfer so easily because they cannot change resources at will. But having seen the shocking difference between IGCSE and GCSE languages I do object to being told that IGCSEs are easier.

Cake, I'm not saying they are easier, they give another option. The I gcse are less interfered with, the content doesn't change as often or as much, they give schools better consistency for preparation and therefore better security. This is one aspect of how hard or easy something is, though not the only thing.
If you truly are interested read through the links, however if you are just being goady that private must be better/harder - please just go away.
State kids have less opportunity in the exams/courses they do. One size does not fit all and therefore this isn't an 'easy' option. When state kids where allowed to do igcse more passed, suggesting it isn't as clear cut as you have suggested. Lots of factors effect 'hardness.' The fact that the kids cover stuff that's on the a level specs doesn't automatically make it harder, if in fact you can miss that out /get it wrong and still get grades @-c.
www.jcq.org.uk/examination-results/gcses/2016
www.google.co.uk/amp/schoolsweek.co.uk/igcse-english-results-2016-pass-rate-increases-in-final-year-of-league-table-inclusion/amp/

ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/02/03/grade-boundaries-the-problems-with-predictions/

ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/24/supplementary-gcse-science-research/

eic.rsc.org/opinion/ignoring-research-and-getting-the-science-wrong/2010044.article

For Maths and Science, lots of independent schools switched over when these GCSE subjects were fully modular and pupils could resit individual modules to boost their grade. Then iGCSEs definitely were harder. If your dcs took GCSEs (and the OPs dc) prior to 2011 then it would have been this system.
New linear GCSEs for Science and Maths were phased in from 2012 (but in 2012/3 some state schools may have had pupils doing either or both depending on when they started their courses). Under the linear system it was possible for pupils to take Core Science in Y10 and the remaining units Additional Science for double scientists in Y11 and further for Triple Scientists in Y11 as well.
Even under the GCSE system that ended in 2016 all units for core science plus coursework had to be taken in one sitting and if you needed to resit all the units had to be retaken i.e. not just chemistry or just physics etc.
So comments from the previous poster about being able to bank grades haven't been true for a few years now.

IME having one twin take IGCSE and one take (old style) GCSE, I would say that it was easier to get a top grade at GCSE, because of the modules, practicals etc ( easy to bank some good marks) and because the course was slightly more broad at IGCSE. Also the grade boundaries for A* at IGCSE were higher.

I think however the grade boundaries for a C were lower at IGCSE. And this is why selective schools chose them for their high ability students and mixed ability schools chose them for their borderline students.

With the new GCSEs it's too early to tell where we will be with grade boundaries. But both now have terminal exams so are comparable in that regard.

Private schools are (mostly) sticking with IGCSEs for consistency.

IGCSEs havent been messed around with year after year after year. GCSEs have so obviiusly if private schools can avoid having to change syllabus every year they will.

Clavinova - another advantage of IGCSE maths is the huge overlap with AS level. DS has already completed the syllabus because there was so little new to learn and is now just doing practise papers.

User..7016 why don't you give us some real numbers and facts rather than your abstract conclusions based on "more children" ? You keep convincing yourself that IGCSEs are easier but it doesn't account for ALL of the top performing schools in the country at A level all having taken them. Or are you suggesting that they take an easier exam so as to give themselves more work to do in sixth form?

No one has said they are much easier, but they test different skills, and have options available that aren't open to state schools. These suit learners and this can be interpreted as easier, in reality it is just different. Also as they aren't included in performance tables they are less effected by 'volatility' of the whim of the education minister at that time. When more state school kids did igcse national standards rose, this wasn't expected and to correct it, they are eliminate from tables. A conclusion you can draw is more kids passed as it was easier. These options combined with the fact more students from the independent/private sector get exam concessions, are one of the reasons these sets of students do better. It would be fairer if these chances where extended to state pupils with similar needs, rather than focus on what's harder/easier. The state sector are now 100% pure exams at the end of year 11. This doesn't suit all, this is what is confused with easier/harder. In reality if a test is actually harder they just lower the boundary to pass, the boundaries are only set after the test, based on a preset distribution of how many of each grades are going to be awarded. So the actual hardest of the test becomes less significant- the difference is the opportunities students have. Outside of performance tables, teachers have more choice to meet needs and often this is why those students do better, flourish, get a better start post 16, do better.... get to university etc.

If iGCSEs are so much easier, why do top universities accept them? Why don't they "mark candidates down" for taking iGCSEs rather than GCSEs?

Because universities don't give a shit about exams taken at 16. They care about exams taken at 18.

Draylon
As far as I can see most of the new material being added to the reformed higher tier Maths GCSE is already on the old IGCSE higher tier - quadratic inequalities, proving circle theorems, finding the nth term of a quadratic sequence, inverse functions, plus set theory, basic differential calculus etc. The higher tier students are not just given the formulae as you suggest - DS1 has to learn all the circle theorems for example.
If IGCSE Maths is (currently) good enough for St. Paul's School (they have an A-level Chief Examiner on their staff) then it's good enough for me:
www.stpaulsschool.org.uk/st-pauls/academic/mathematics

Anyway, I thought your ds1's comp was supposed to be one of the top performing state schools in the county - it's just that your ds1 didn't achieve that well and wasn't accepted for A-level Maths. I don't think he would have had an easier ride with IGCSE.

Are you saying that iGCSEs are not easier?

Shortwriter is spot on.

There is no coursework. The practical test option is only available to overseas schools (Edexcel). The GCSE and IGCSE exam questions are written very differently to test different skills.

Not any more for science. Kids from Y10 and below are doing a new spec GCSE science which is a lot like iGCSE which was definitely harder than the old spec GCSE.
It's no longer relevant in science.

Interesting. If iGCSEs are so much easier, why do top universities accept them? Why don't they "mark candidates down" for taking iGCSEs rather than GCSEs?