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?

Ahh... but he was brought up in a cardboard box - that's dead trendy these days - maybe he should write a book about his deprived childhood - God knows there's enough out there already!

We do still teach the 3 separate sciences where I work.....a state comp

I am currently teaching 45 children Biology at AS level. Of these all but a handful did double sciences. They have been 'setted' into B1 and B2. None of the top set did separste sciences. Not statistically significantly , since the n is too small, but for me it is interesting.

In my professional judgment having done double scineces is no handicap to these scientifically able children. As their teacher, I would far rather them have some breadth of study at GCSE. If you want to argue that the scince curriculum should be reorganised to give teachers more time to teach the kids scientific method, I'd agree with you. But simply having an extra GCSEs worth of scinece Knowledge stuffed into them, doesn't make them better scientists. It makes them better at remembering scince 'stuff', not the same thing at all. Or are you in favour of rote learning?

But what would I know DC eh? After all I only understand the sylabuses for all three types of examination, teach the work, and also work with the kids directly after they have finished their GCSEs. I am also a rather good scientist, with a significantly better than average understanding of my subject.

Oh, and I know what the kids are studying now following the changes in the science curruiculum. Bet you don't!

I agree that an extra GCSE doesn't always make better scientists, I work with people who have to have at least grade B in A level chemistry plus similar in maths biology or physics to get into their degree courses and they have no scientific curiousity at all.

But am glad DS2 can do three separate sciences at his comp whereas his big brother could only do double and despite doing extremely well (100% in modules) had quite a leap to A levels.

Martianbishop do you have any links to studies done on your idea that teaching less science has no effect on able students ?
You can see why I do no find that intuitive.

International baccalaureate Middle Years Programme (ages 11-16)

"This subject group may be considered as consisting of:
either the traditional subjects of biology, chemistry and physics, or
an integrated ?sciences? course.
Also included are topics, concepts and issues from other branches of science, such as earth and health sciences"

The IB is widely held to be a better exam system than ours, isn't it? Integrated sciences seem to be OK by them.

Not if you are a potential scientist etc from a faily early age too generalist post 16 (myself and DS1 included)

Yes, but this is for up to 16. The single sciences are available, for scientists, but IB obviously feel that they are not essential for every student.

Because I know the course, I know that the information that they cover in the last two modues tends to be
a. Rather dull. You may find learning how soy sauce is fermented, and how quorn is made interesting, but I do not. Similarly looking at sewage works and water treatment plants does not make for riviting science.
b. Sometimes quite abstract and the children may well lack the intelectual maturity they need to make the connections needed to understand the topics in hand.
c. Covered again, in more depth, at AS. The understanding gleaned at GCSE is so shallow it tends to be covered in minutes doing the AS phase, and does not give the children a significant advantage.

If we had the extra curriculum time the third GCSE provides, and could use that to get the children to think, as oppsed to learn dull facts about water treatment and soy production, I would agree that it would make 'better' scientists. But having more of the same does nothing to significantly improve their grasp of 'real' science.

I don't know of a study, But I do have many years of actually working with these kids, as well as 7 years of reserch in Academic life, and 5 years in the pharmaceutical trade. I know that what we teach them in the extra two modules does not make them any better at planning experiment, analysis, metanalysis and logical thought.

I agree about the curriculum containing a vast amount of dull crap. We did a lot of fractional distillation, something that makes fermentation look like BattleStar Galactica.

I was saddened by the way cost concerns have been dressed up as safety when I looked at schools for DS. Chemsitry seemss to have suffered worse. We did experiments with potassium when I was a kid, when I visited DSs school they were doing the same stuff but with Calcium. Given a budget and an array of the smartest people off my database I refuse to believe I could find anything duller than reacting calcium with water.

Do schools show video clips of these reactions - chucking potassium etc into vats of water?

I can't blame teachers for not wanting to do potentially dangerous experiments with a mixed class perhaps save it for later with the keen and able students. Some girls at school decided to use Millon's reagent (?stains proteins if I remember rightly) to put the inital of their current crush on their hands - they ended up with severe burns.