Triple science gcses. Pros and cons please.

[Spidermama]

My daughter's being encouraged to take triple science for gcses. I don't know much about this. They warn it would mean lots of hard work and she's already working really hard and getting stressed. Any experience anyone?

Loads of things are worth dropping a science for: another language or history and geography for a linguistic or arty stype, or another creative subject like music/fine art for a creative type or DT or similar for a hands-on sort. Doing 2 science GCSEs closes no doors for children, but another GCSE could open some.

When I was at school (very selective grammar back in the days of O level) we did separate sciences, but most people only did one or two so they could do the other subjects they wanted. I was a scientist, so did all 3, but had no creative subject as a consequence and only one mfl. Today's situation doing double award is much better than that.

Just from a teaching perspective, triple has a full third more content, although parents and students don't always realise this. In OCR, Module 7 in each subject is equivalent in time / breadth to modules 1-3 or4-6 added together- nine week of teaching time roughly. other exam boards follow the same pattern. If no extra curriculum time is allowed, anyone who is less than a solid B will struggle.

The controlled assessment aspect has changed now too, so separate pieces for each subject rather than submitting one piece multiple times.

My view is that if a child is on the D/C borderline triple is usually a bridge too far, and will usually be better getting two Cs in double than CCD or CDD. A solid B pupil in double would usually also get Bs in triple. (if extra curriculum time is allocated)

The key difference for me is that if they plan to do any A level science, double leaves them at a real disadvantage. The time they have to spend getting up to speed is too much when you consider they'll sit their first exam in January. I honestly think it makes the difference between a C and an E for many pupils. And universities definitely care about that

I posted this on another thread. Hope it helps

My understanding is this: that the triple science pathway is vital if sciences are chosen for A level.
Double award is fine if science is not going to be taken at A level.

The report below states:
3.9.1 Most teachers felt that Triple Award was the best foundation for the study of A Level Science subjects because of its depth of coverage.

3.8.1 Most teachers said that the main disadvantage of Double Award was that it was not
the most appropriate foundation for the study of A Level Science subjects.

3.8.2 Because bridging courses were required for Double Award pupils, teachers said that
there was a lack of time to cover the syllabus, to consolidate learning and to revise.

3.8.7 The mathematical content in Double Award was said by some teachers to be
inadequate for those who progressed to the study of science at A Level.

The Transition from GCSE Science to GCE A Level Science: A Report by The Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum,Examinations and Assessment (see link)

gtcni.openrepository.com/gtcni/bitstream/2428/6280/1/TransGCSEGCEsci.pdf

Im not a mom, i just wanted you guys to have a students perspective.

My school now runs the 'English Baccalaureate' system which makes sure you keep all the important subjects on your schedule and my class in particular are doing the triple science award, all it means is instead of getting GCSE's in 'Core' 'Additional' and possibly 'Further Additional' you get GCSE's in 'Physics' 'Chemistry' and 'Biology' this looks much better on a CV although if you're weak at one of the particular subjects then there is no way to bring up that grade, the opportunity is usually given to us whom are good at all 3 science's. from my point of view, A/A/A is the sciences is much better than A/A* in core and additional

My son is going to do triple science.
His comp advises that those in the top 2 sets out of 5 are suitable for it and I've suggested that he go for it just in case he wants to do science A levels/degree.

I know this is a zombie thread BUT

DD has done triple science fast track : it was absolutely fine for the top 10% of the cohort
DS will do similar : I have no worries about 3 GCSEs coming out of two classroom slots

My daughter I has been invited to do triple science. She is not very keen as she doesn't really like science, but is getting A/B grades. She want to focus on music after GCSE's. Her school require as extra 2 hour class after school every week from now on (year 10) until the end of year 11. For an unsciency person is it worth encouraging her to do from a 'how it looks on your cv' perspective?

It's perfectly possible to do triple science, a MFL and humanities - DD1 is doing just that: Triple science, English lang and lit, French, History, Geography, Maths and Statistics. Then RE as half a GCSE on top of that, but only because they have to take it to 16 anyway. You still end up with a pretty balanced package, albeit an academic one. DD1 would have liked to do Drama or Art, but not to the point of dropping a humanity.

At DD1's school triple science is 'by invitation' - you have to be considered strong enough academically to do it.

Two different experiences here (and I did notice this was a zombie thread!):

DS1 took double science. Maybe he's unusual in this, but he has had very little trouble with A-level physics afterwards. He got 2A*.

DS2 is taking triple, because it was compulsory for the top set. He has zero interest in it for A-level and has found it a tough call to do three controlled assessments/investigations -- time he could really have done to have spent on bringing other subjects up to scratch. I'll be surprised if he does any better than BBB.

Not sure what I'm saying here -- but I don't think it's always a good idea to do triple science just because you're meant to be capable of it.

That's a good point, Lancelottie (I love your moniker, by the way). DD1 is really into science and wants to do biology, chemistry and English Lit for A-level so it makes sense for her to do triple just to get the intensity of teaching that might make the step up a little bit less hard for her. If your in a top set and it isn't your thing, I can imagine doing triple science would be miserable. Fortunately DD's school does not force anyone to do it, they invite but are fine with people declining. Though DD1's science teacher did say it would be extremely rude of DD1 not to do triple, but this was after she had stated her intention to do it.

Thanks Lancelottie and pointythings for your advice. She has decided not to do it, and I think it is for the best for her, she can focus on her art and music which is where her passions lie :)

Art and music? I would think she's going to need those extra two hours!

Yes Lancelotte, they do both seem to be massive amounts of work, particularly art coursework. Personally, I'd rather do triple science!!! ;)

I'm with you on that one. At least with science (at GCSE level anyway) there's a right answer, and a time to stop.

pros
-easier for you in a-levels
-more intresting
-good if you want to go into a medical career

cons
-you do 9 exams and that can be a bit frustrating
-can e tricky at times
-can take up more revision in triple science than in other subjects

My dd did triple science and got A in each one. I think all pupils stated on the assumption they would do the triple pbut those not up to the task dropped at advanced stage. If they are better in one of the sciences than the others then triple science can help them get an A in the individual subkeject and help if they want to progress a science at A level.

In my daughter's school they did double in the school day and the top set were invited to do triple after school and still got 4 other GCSE choices. She declined in favour of doing AS maths during school time and thought they would both be too much. The people who did triple science did nothing but moan about the extra work. We thought that if she did it, it could be at the detriment of her other GCSE's and it wouldn't matter long term if she had it not. Unis only look at the top 8/9 GCSE's after all and not all of them and future employers wouldn't count them up. I've also never heard of it being a problem for those doing A level Sciences. In her double science, they covered 2/3 of each of the syllabuses for Biology, Chemistry and Physics. However, if she was planning to do many science A level (she only did Biology) then I'm sure she would have done triple science. My nephew did double science and is studying Biological Sciences at a top Uni. I think the only difference it would make is how hard you find the jump between GCSE and A level.