To think that this is terrible news for my children's education?

[ICameOnTheJitney]

Axeing of Soft GCSEs to hit Drama and PE

Exam board insiders confirmed this weekend that subjects such as law, media studies, drama and PE were at risk of being culled from the list of about 58 GCSEs. One source said that as many as 20 subjects were under scrutiny

Why the arts? And surely PE is a VALID subject...not all children are academic and we NEED PE teachers and drama teachers and actors ffs!

Please tell me why, if this happens it's a good thing?

grendel, if I'd wanted to study at a women's college, I'd have applied for it. It would be very odd to assume that someone from a mixed comp studying male-dominated subjects who hadn't expressed a desire in single-sex education would be happy with that allocation. It shows a lack of thought in the process, IMO. That, or no one wanted single-sex ed at uni so the people who didn't express a preference were simply dumped there. Not the best start.

Friday, from what I can gather, the issue is unsuitable GCSEs. Otherwise Oxbridge wouldn't be bothered, what's being said on this thread isn't that kids are studying the wrong A-levels, but that unsuitable GCSE choices will hold them back regardless of A-levels.

Can we please ban the phrase 'Oxbridge material', as if everything else is a lesser experience for lesser people. I say this as someone who turned Cambridge down and chose another university instead.

The problem with all this discussion about schools which don't know about various aspects of university admission is that the implication is that Britain contains schools as isolated as US prairie school circa 1880, built by homesteaders who arrived in covered wagons, with the young Laura Ingalls Wilder as the junior schoolmistress. Even then, weekly newspapers arrived on the new transcontinental railroad.

Plenty of schools, some of them even outside the M25, managed to learn of the effective strategies for using early entry to improve their 5A*-C measure. Most schools have at least examined, if not implemented, strategies involving use of BTEC with weaker students, split English/English Lit, 3 year KS4, early entry maths, "Accelerated Learning" languages, Brain Gym, VAK and so on. News of those things travels very quickly. So why is it assumed that schools in deprived areas are somehow impervious to news of facilitating A Levels, and why, all other things being equal, taking them is quite a good idea?

NobelGiraffe - I think I'm still struggling to really understand your thinking (and I'm very keen to). Was it that you specifically wanted to be living in accommodation where there would be men studying your subject as well as women? Did you feel that men brought a different angle to the subject than women, and you wanted to be able to hear that point of view informally, as well as during formal classes?

The reason I'm particularly keen to see your point of view is that it might be quite different to something that people often say about their experiences of studying maths, and I'd like to hear more about it.

but that unsuitable GCSE choices will hold them back regardless of A-levels.

I think that's a very strong claim. I've seen it made (I have a child who submitted a UCAS form including Oxford last month) but I've not seen much in the way of evidence for it being true. I thought the main concern was that some GCSE choices limit A Level choices, or make it less likely that you will do well in particular A Levels. It is absolutely the case that university admission for any over-subscribed university, and many rather less over-subscribed ones, is massively eased if you have the standard, expected A Levels for the course.

Given Oxbridge's enthusiasm for transparency over desirable qualifications, if it's true that GCSE subject choices are considered even if you are doing the "right" A Levels, it's surprising it hasn't been published as guidance.

It would be interesting to know how many people take what might be summarised, by some on this thread, as "weak" GCSE choices, go on to study traditional A Levels in which they obtain decent ASes, and then think they have been penalised for this when applying to university.

I can imagine the Oxford process, which doesn't look too much at AS but uses GCSEs more heavily, might have a whiff of this, but if they are weighting by subject that should be admitted to. The Cambridge process is heavily based around AS, including looking at AS module UMS scores, and they are apparently less concerned with GCSEs.

I doubt m/any Redbricks are concerned with GCSE subject choices beyond the core subjects.

friday wordfactory has been very clear on this thread that Oxford would not look kindly on an application where the GCSEs were not favoured subjects. Even with the right A-levels, they use GCSE to distinguish between candidates.

TBH Oxford are fairly open about the fact that AS results don't interest them too much. For them it's all about the GCSEs.

Which is a bit baffling really. If someone manages to get top grades in chemistry, maths and physics, what difference does it really make to their university career in one of those subjects if they did BTEC music, GCSE PE and media studies at GCSE. I mean, really?

It's a shame about PE; one of mine wants to go into sports and wanted to do sports at GCSE so it'll have an impact on them - they were planning triple science, art and design, PE plus engineering so they had the option of teaching PE or being a sports physio or possibly designing sports equipment.

Grendel, it wasn't anything to do with studying maths I'm afraid. Just that going to Uni and cutting myself off from 50% of the population, whose company up till then I had enjoyed, and who I had successfully studied alongside seemed like a weird, unnecessary, unpleasant thing to do.

Maybe people who had enjoyed single sex education up till then might see it differently, but I liked boys!

Why, laqueen? Why ten? Why would it make any difference to their university studies in maths to have done history instead of PE, or a second language? Or even a first language seeing as Oxford doesn't care enough about Europe to send maths students there to study?

I know Oxbridge can cherry pick. But then they wonder why they don't get as many kids from state schools as they are supposed to. They are failing to meet their targets on this and they are supposed to be doing outreach work but are imposing these restrictions which are doing more to separate the privately educated from the bog standard comp than the wheat from the chaff.

If a kid can excel in difficult a-levels, then that's proof of their academic credentials.

Why would it make any difference to their university studies in maths to have done history instead of PE

I'd want some evidence that they actually are using that as a factor, before discussing whether they should.

NobleGiraffe - oh, cool. I think you're saying that you really valued knowing a wide range of people, and you felt that if you were at a woman's college, you'd have a limited social network, to the point where you'd be actively choosing not to spend any time with men? If I've got that right, then your unhappiness makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining - much appreciated.

When there are so many people applying to Oxbridge, of course there will be many, many excellent applicants rejected.

Ds recently had a talk from Cambridge and they stated that 7A*s was necessary at GCSE as a starting point. They weren't interested in 15, or strings of similar ones. Ds bombed in a (compulsory, Mickey Mouse) one he had to take early and they laughed and said it didn't matter at all.

It really seems to be a bit of a lottery and I suppose anyone who fails will be looking to blame something or someone.

A while back there was a programme on Radio 4 following students hoping to take English at... I can't remember whether it was Oxford or Cambridge, but there really didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for their selections.

I do get annoyed too though at posters who breeze that kids should be left to get on with it, when their dcs are sitting in schools with "Oxbridge interview mock-up rooms" and have a hotline to masters with their hands on the phone to admissions tutors. Whether these things are actually of any benefit is rather dubious, but I suppose if a parent has forked out ££££ on a school it's a bit hard to stomach "state school chancers" (as one poster so nicely put it once) having an equal stab at things.

"Which is a bit baffling really. If someone manages to get top grades in chemistry, maths and physics, what difference does it really make to their university career in one of those subjects if they did BTEC music, GCSE PE and media studies at GCSE. I mean, really?"

The point about having a full hand of academic GCSEs (three sciences, maths, English lit, history, geography, RE, two MFL) with mostly A* is that it demonstrates a high level of general ability and achievement. And that is generally considered to a be a pre-requisite for specialist study at the better universities.

Lovely if you can add on music, drama, sport and art - but proficiency in those skills are better demonstrated by other means than GCSE.

Why is "general ability" an advantage when you reach that level of specialisation?

Being crap at Chemistry and having a terrible GCSE French teacher didn't stop me scoring very high first class marks for every single piece of English Literature work I submitted as part of my degree and MA.

Because knowing an awful lot about very little, and only that, is not a very good preparation for life in a world that requires multiple skills and constant learning.

Also, why the heck is MFL better assessed by GCSE than Music? They involve exactly the same kinds of challenges (learning the underlying rules and patterns which allow you to express yourself and interpret others' work, reading and writing in different language, performance and essay based exams, etc)... Languages aren't inherently "higher" level skills than music - pretty much everybody can express themselves using at least one, which is more than can be said for instruments...

I don't think GCSEs are a good way of assessing MFL - examinations that are tied to the CEFR for languages are much better and are going to become the international standard. But for the time being GCSE is the only widespread syllabus and examination for MFL in English schools.

But you specifically mentioned MFL GCSEs in the post I was referring to...

Yes, because there is currently no other real option. Which there is for music.

Also, just saw your comment about "knowing a lot about very little" - surely that's a bit reductive? Some people are exceptional at arts and humanities subjects, but display an unremarkable level of aptitude for or interest in the sciences. "Well roundedness" is important for some subjects, but I don't see how (to use my example) being rubbish at Chemistry would be a red flag to somebody who was interviewing me as a potential English student.

Also, what is academia, if not a career in learning a lot about very little...?