Triple Science over Double Science

[Freeman1]

My eldest in year 9 has just failed his exam to take Triple Science at GCSE level. To say he is disappointed is putting it mildly, no enthusiam for any science now and feels he is a complete failure. I cannot find anything to tell me the disadvantages to future A levels / Uni courses or indeed what the differences are. Is he already at a great disadvantage? Although he has no desire to be a Dr, Rock guitarist (no science req lol) and careers that would require engineering have been mentioned. Please help.

Thanks, that's one thing to ask at options evening.

Another thing to think about is where your son will be doing his A levels. My friends DD changed schools for 6th form and could not do A level Chemistry as she had only taken double science.

I think there is some truth that the really capable science kids will generally take 3 sciences, so if it was me, I think I would support your son and push for him to be allowed to. If its want he wants, he will probably work harder to prove himself.

The brightest kids at DD's school are not opting for triple science - there are 17 kids top set for everything, but only 6 of them want to work in science or engineering (don't know if that is sad or not?) most are doing computer sciences and art and design - which you can't do both of if you take triple science... but which are very handy for your own web design business which 3 of the kids have started up (age 14!)

Double science is compulsory at our school too - and is set by ability.

I think the view that the brightest kids will take triple is becoming outdated, computers are changing the world we live in. But parents who keep buying the "triple for clever kids" myth will put a lot of pressure on their kids to do triple, and to do well at triple. Which is fine so long as you do not close off options (at our school double does not close off any options for the kids, Alevel sciences are still done by many).

Although it's unfortunate that DS has ended up in this mixed ability "top set" Double Science, he is still on track for As and I still think he made the right decision. He is also doing Computer Science and with Triple, his timetable would have been far too Science heavy especially as he wants to do Humanities at A Level. Had he wanted to do Science A Levels then I think he should have done the Triple. In the end, it came down to Geography or Triple - he chose Geography and he loves it is considering it for A Level. I remember his Science teacher telling us to make sure that choosing Triple didn't mean closing any doors, which it would have done.

I think it's unfortunate so many parents have bought in to the double science is just as good myth. It's easier for schools to teach kids less and aim to get more A/A. From the pov of the schools it's a numbers game. But the point of education is to learn after all and kids learn more with triple science. don't kid yourselves that double is just as good. for kids with a scientific career in mind double sells them way short - even with A. Suits the school fine though. Grrh!

but mum in a lot of schools, doing double frees up another block of your timetable for an alternative gcse. so the pupils still learn as much, just less of it is science. im a science teacher but that doesnt mean i dont see the value of learning about art or geography or a language.
in my experience, those who do double science are not at a disadvantage when it comes to AS /A2. im in NI, where you can choose as much or as little science as you like for gcse, including say just biology, or physics and chemistry. but even when it had to be single/double/triple the ones who had done double were fine. your efforts and habits matter much more at a-level than your background, in my experience.
OP, i thought from the start it was likely to be the failing of the exam and what this said to him that was bothering your ds, rather than the effect on his a-level options. its a shame the school sets a test to get into triple, it raises the prestige of the option unnecessarily. i hope things work out for him.

I agree with diddle

At DD's school triple science takes up 3 options and double science takes up 2. So students taking up double science will take another option that could be just as useful - history, geography, a language etc. IMO it is unrealisitic to expect a student to cover more work in the same amount of time by allocating the same teaching hours to triple science as to double.

gardenfeature - computer science is a fabulous career path to choose at the moment but you can study computer science at any university in the country without even a whiff of a computer science or ICT GCSE/A level. I don't think you can study engineering without physics or chemistry A Level (or equivalent) plus maths of course. OP needs to check how many double science students at her ds' school go on to take AS/A Level physics or chemistry and how successful they were. Can her ds speak to one of the sixth formers at the school who was in the same position?

Perhaps my last post should have been directed to SomewhereIBelong - sorry gardenfeature.

Are you a biology teacher as well diddlediddledumpling?

clavinova yes, my main subject is biology.
pensionerpeep the government decided in its wisdom that a 'balanced' science education was desirable, so the three sciences have to be studied to the same level.
not in NI anymore, though.

I think it's such a shame that the sciences aren't more separated. There's a world of difference between biology and chemistry. I hated chemistry with a passion at school and dropped it as soon as I could. Got good physics and biology gcse results though.

You might as well lump history and geography together and insist on teaching it as a double "humanity" subject.

I never studied biology beyond year 9. Nor did DH. We both did science degrees.
I think it's good that all students cover a bit of all three up to the age of 16.

OP I can't remember if you have said what level of Science is compulsory at your sons school. If everyone has to study double science (as some other posters have said about their children's schools), then I would want to ensure your son is in a class of children who like science and wanted to study it rather than a class of children who are doing it because it's compulsory. It made a world of difference to my son when he started his gcse's.

Hi there IcantFindAFreeNickName&nomorehollyoaks

As far as I know it's compulsory to take Double so that is my son's fears. He has concentration problems and is extremely concerned that he will end up with children who don't want to learn rather than with children who have chosen Double over Triple.

diddlediddledumpling, thank you for your encouraging words.

I would like to thank all of you who have taken the time to reply to my post, it does indeed seem very confusing as separate schools seem to have different policies. I have plenty of questions to take to his parents evening that I have taken from your responses. I will certainly keep you all posted on the eventual outcome but in the meantime keep the responses coming, it's not just me your replies seem to be helping, there are a lot of us that are very confused by it all.

Freeman1 - your ds may want to take a look at this website; www.tomorrowsengineers.org.uk/ which has an interesting section on engineers in music (if he plays rock guitar!) and all things engineering. It does say on the website, "If your school offers three separate sciences, this provides a very good grounding for engineering."

This has been a really enlightening discussion.

Clavinova, you made some really interesting points and I would welcome your views on the advisability of doing triple science if it is only offered within the same timeslot as the double.

I can't get a feel for how much of a tall order this is - how much extra work, how much more difficult, etc. A no-brainer for those definitely heading for medicine, perhaps, but what about a clever but so far not motivated student who nevertheless may decide later to aim for sciences or even Oxbridge?

OP, is there not another chance? DS was looking at double science this time last year, based on the average of his science test performance throughout. So, I had the same discussion with the science teacher at the parents' meeting and was told it shouldn't limit future options. His only chance was to do really well in the remaining science tests - and, because they actually make the final decision about all the options at the end of the summer term, they could still let him take triple. I thought it was pretty unlikely, but he actually pulled himself together and did it, and is now doing triple science.

At dds school all pupils predicted to achieve more than 5 A*-C GCSEs are expected to take Double Science. The Double Science groups and Triple Science groups are set according to ability. dd is in the tops set and it has been a great boost to her confidence in her ability in this subject. (Most of the pupils in the top sets in Y9 opted for Triple). Lower ability pupils would take single Science (Core) GCSE. So if your child's school organises the Science sets well there shouldn't be a problem with taking Double Science.
In some comp schools lower ability pupils may take BTEC Science rather than GCSE.

Pupils usually obtain the best results for Triple Science if it takes up an option as this gives more teaching time and makes sure that they cover the syllabus in sufficient detail. I would only recommend the Triple in the same time as Double option for pupils who are able to take in information really quickly and are sufficiently motivated to do extra work in their own time. Not a good idea for not very well motivated pupils who need more teacher input imo Hebegebes.

DD's school doesn't offer triple science. At all.

It's a very academic school which sends loads of people to Oxbridge, to do medicine and so on, and has a very high proportion of people studying A level sciences (it is a girls school).

I think the problem isn't so much with a kid who hopes to get A/A only doing double science, it's with a kid who hopes to get A/A doing double science in a school where all the other kids who are expected to get A/A* are doing triple, so the double lessons are pitched at B/C level.

Viva I think it's such a shame that the sciences aren't more separated. There's a world of difference between biology and chemistry.

Cambridge would disagree with you, and do not offer separate Sciences but a Natural Sciences course with increasing specialisation. "The breadth of the course reflects the blurring of boundaries between the different sciences and before committing yourself to one department, you study a variety of subjects, some of which may be new to you. This is a huge advantage because it gives you the flexibility to change your mind about which subject to specialise in, and is extremely valuable in alerting you to the important issues in other branches of science." www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/natsci/ A lot of the major areas of Scientific advance are happening at the borders of the Sciences eg Synthetic Biology en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology

So no it isn't a shame, it is vital that in training the potential consumers of the products of future Scientific advances or possibly the Scientists who achieve them, our children have a grounding in all the Sciences. Think about the massive amount of ignorance manifested in the media coverage and media coverage of GM crops.......

And there is a similar move towards a blurring of the boundaries in the academic study of the arts as well, humanity does not produce it's literature, art, philosophy, religion, in a historical and political vacuum.

And Geography is a funny one, many uni courses are BSc, it can't quite decide if it is studying the human or physical world, because even there there is blurring.....

Sorry, useless at proof reading, "the media coverage and public perception of GM crops"