GCSE choices - don't know where to begin

[tatt]

we have to make choices soon. Our child is reasonably good at everything but not outstanding at anything. Likes art/ design & tech best and is currently keen on animation. Possibly looking to a career in something like graphic design or website design but we're concerned they may be very competitive ad not good choices fo someone who also wants a lot of money. Help - how do you decide?

DC.

If you study separate scineces GCSE, you do 6 modules 'worth' of each science studied. For Double science you do 4 for each of the three sciences, 12 in total.

So obviously they will study things that they would not during the Double science course. For the biology this is mostly amazingly boring stuff abut fermentation. They do some work on protein synthesis, but it is at such a low level, we eaily cover it in the first few minuetes when we teach this subject again at AS level.

I have sent several students to read medicine, to get to Oxbridge collages on the back of souble science GCSE, it is no handicap to a child who has an interest in science.

And let me see, I've actually taught both courses, and A level biology, and correct me if I am wrong but you have not. I know what I am talking about. And an Oxford trained, ex lab scientist and current teacher, I would rather children have breadth of study at GCSE.

Yes, I was wrong. So if my children did double science, that is 2 GCSEs but covering the 3 sciences? You see I don't even know what they did and then you get parents who'll know every bit of the course and write the course work! Not fair on the children perhaps that I never once looked at a bit of GCSE course work.

Great post MB. Surely this should have cleared it all up now?

And just to confuse people more, 'Double science' has now also gone the way of all flesh!

Now you have the same basic idea but with different names. A single GCSEs 'worth' for those who are not that adept at science. 2 GCSEs worth for the more scientific, and there is still the option for three separate sciences, 3 GCSEs worth.

The biggest probelm I have is when children want to do A level Biology without having done chemistry (either as separate science or in the double science GCSE) at GCSE. It is a nightmare for them, since the begining of the AS level course is Biochemistry. We do our best to disuade these kids from starting the AS course, since most of them flounder badly.

Now (for those children currently in year 10) children do 12 modules for a GCSE in science over two years (4 in each of the sciences).This will get them a single Science GCSE. If they are better at science they will do 24 modules (8 in each of the three sciences) and get a GCSE in Science and a GCSE in Additional Science. This is the euqlivalent of the Double Science GCSE that we have had for the last few years.

Some students do more study (which in biology looks as dull as it always used to ) and get three GCSEs, one each in Biology, Chemistry and Physics.

Where I work most children do Science and Additional science. very few do the three separate sciences.

We get out less academic children to do a Btech in Applied science, which has no synaptics examnations and is asssesed on protfolio work.

As it happens MB I've also worked in a lab.
I lack your direct expeirence of teaching science, but I do get to see the results.

I never found fermentation interesting, but to me your comments add to my view that science education is screwed.

I still don't fully understand your position. You say that if the school fails to teach the kids GCSE chemistry, they "flounder" in biology.
I can't reconcile this with the notion it does no harm.

Also I flatly reject the "some kids go on to do cool thing X".
I went to a school where O level chemistry was almost entirely a technical drawing teacher telling us to copy bits out of books. My maths teacher didn't have a degree in anything. More people were stabbed at school in my 6th form than went to university.
I went on to do mildly cool stuff like working out processes for getting gold to stick to teflon at 18, and being dropped into Microsoft by IBM to tell them their programming isn't up to my standards.
So I'm one of the kids who showed "an interst" in science.
But what about everyone else. Most kids simply couldn't get into the top places no matter how you educated them, some can overcome far worse crap than I did.
Most kids are in the middle,
By reducing the science they get taught by 1/3 and as you say cutting off options for A levels, this is not serving the vast bulk of childten well.

But if they do double science they do study enough chemistry to cope with the Biochemisytry at A level. They don't need to do separate science GCSE chemistry, any more than they need to do separate scinec GCSE in biology.

My concern is when people do GCSE Biology, (NOT GCSE DOUBLE SCIENCE) without doing GCSE chemistry. these are the kids who struggle.

If they do double science GCSE they have enough biology, cmenistry and physics to study any of them at A level, It is when they do single sciences, and miss out, say chemistry or physics, that they land themselves in trouble.

You simply don't know enough about the courses that you are discussing

Aha - that explains why at DS2's school Chem & Phys are the compulsory separate sciences if taken, with Biol an optional extra - I did wonder about that - thanks, mb

If you don't want to do Biology at A level, then doing Chem and Physics as separate sciences GCSE would be OK (but sad because Biology is the 'best' science )

Chem Phys and Maths at A level is a good combo.

If you do Physics it is a help to have done Chemistry at GCSE (either as part of double science, or as a separate science GCSE)

To do Biology at A level is is just about essential to have done Chemistry (either as part of dounle science, or as sep science GCSE)

There is no significant advantage in doing 3 separate sciences over double science as regards GCSE grades. Some of my very best results at A level have come from kids who did Double Science GCSE

Completely agree with MB re the Chemistry/AS Biology bit. I did GCSE biology last year (as an adult) and tried to do AS this year and gave up after half term as I have no Chemistry knowledge and the tutor could have been speaking dutch for all it meant to me.

my dd has just had to choose her options. They are taking three GCSE's this year too. At her school she was made to take, English Lit and Language (Language is being sat in June this year), Statistics (again this year) and mathematics. they have to take business studies, short course RS, citizenship (!), core Science (they sat module 1 last month). Then they had to make their choices from the other subjects. DD chose Geography, Additional Science, French and BTEC sports. I think she wanted the sports one to allow her some fun and exercise away from the classroom. Oh and the fact that there is no exam might have had something to do with it! Good luck to all your children having to make these choices.

With all due respect MB, you seem to be describing an ideal situation, where double "science" is an option. I don't doubt that is appropriate for some kids.
However many schools have used it as an excuse to do away with the single subject and only offer it instead.
This saves money because science is more expensive to teach, and given the fact that the teachers at the schools I've visited show no shame in this crap, fits the increasingly arty bias of education.

Most schools offer double science DC. Children who are not 'scientific' can do the single science version which still covers biology, chemistry and physics, but half of each. Doing separate scineces does not give a significant advantage to the scientificaly able, doing all 3 spearate sciences is a distinct disadvantage to the less scientific, and dropping the lest favoured sciences (normaly physics and Chemistry in my experience) results in a population which is less scientificaly literate.

You don;'t know what you are talking about regarding these options DC

MB - please let me compliment you on your patience.

I didn't do any Science at O-level as they weren't compulsory. And I disliked the teachers. I was not well advised I'm afraid.

It comes of years of practice with Y7, 8, and 9 who tend not to listen to me either

Lol!

Why don't you put on an appointment at your local careers office, as opposed to talking to the school guidance teacher. Not all careers advice in schools is rubbish, as most careers officers are graduates. They should be able to tell you what the entrance qualifications are for most courses or the best way to enter a particular job.

Why don't you put on an appointment at your local careers office, as opposed to talking to the school guidance teacher. Not all careers advice in schools is rubbish, as most careers officers are graduates. They should be able to tell you what the entrance qualifications are for most courses or the best way to enter a particular job.

I remember reading that most state schools don't have the resourced to teach Biology, Chemistry and Physics separately as there is a shortage of Physics Graduates.
Apparently quite a few private schools still teach the 3 subjects separately.
So... in answer to DC - I imagine that even the academic elite in most state schools will have to study what she terms 'science for dummies'.

typo - 'resources'

I always thought you was a man DC - I suppose because of the name. Not that it's important of course.

DC is a man - it's the reason so many of his posts are so superior and patronising but uninformed

You wait, JanH - there'll be fireworks when DC reads that!

I'm quite safe, 40+, he never reads my posts, I'm not clever or important enough

He/she got very arsey with me once - to the point of being f*ing rude, frankly! And you know me - I'm usually the voice of reason when I'm not having one of my addled moments

F*cking rude is his little way, bless him - he is a pimp, after all. Look at the way he's been dissing mb on this thread when he knows FA about the subject (never stopped him yet, mind).

I generally find him enormously amusing, like a tantrumming 2-year-old I don't have to deal with.