Are GCSE choices as complicated as they seem? Is there an idiot's guide?

[ragged]

I am foreign so come from a very different system.
Modular vs. linear GCSEs, taking GCSEs too early, coursework GCSE vs. IGCSEs, BTecs (what are they, anyway??), what's wrong with league tables, what's wrong with EBacc, what's wrong with MFL, whether GCSE results matter that much, how do I know which options are best for my DC (etc.)....

Has it always been this complicated? Do I just listen to what's on offer at my own DC high school & try to ignore the rest of these gabillion possibilities & considerations? How in the world can anybody plan their child's University future at age 12-14, which seems to be required? I feel like I understand so much but still after years of perusing relevant threads on MN, I still understand so little.

Sigh.

ps: oh, and it seems like the goalposts keep moving ("reforms"!), so it's pointless to try to understand the system now because it could completely change at any moment, anyway.

Dd has to choose her options this week and she is 12. She has to take maths, english, sciences, re, ict, pshe and also pe. She then chooses three others from a stupid list of three boxes. Unfortunately they are not set out that well and she can find the two that she wants (history and german) but nothing in the third box. She is very academic and the subjects available are not. She also has to put a reserve subject by each one and this is proving to be even more difficult. How can she put a reserve if she can't pick a first choice! Other parents have been up in arms about it but there is nothing we can do. I thought it would have been better just to pick three subjects and then let school see whats what. Probably too easy to do that. Just so annoying. Anyone else having trouble?

Sorry to boringly revive this, but it appears (gossip) that all of the local state HS have a system where kids have to choose their GCSE options in yr8, and then they do their optional GCSEs over the yrs according to that schedule. EG: French + geography in yr9, biology + history yr 10, and RE+Art in y11.

English & maths are different, they are not optional & completed in yr11 no matter what.

I just wondered, in light of what folk say about "Don't do GCSEs early unless you're sure of an excellent mark".. what else could I do? How have others strategised in this situation? I don't think the state schools give us another option; I'd have to HE to do different (actually my HE friend is putting her y7 child in for GCSEs in May, anyway).

I have to say the "all or nothing at the end" system is yet another thing about English state secondaries I don't like, so I support in principle spreading GCSEs out. But what I really wonder is whether universities will somehow "understand" that DC had no choice but to get some of their GCSE results in yr9/10, and take that into account in any way, when comparing to other applicants (allowing for the fact, I know, that many Uni courses barely care about GCSEs at all).

If you want to do a competitive course at university then taking GCSEs in year 9 can put you at a serious disadvantage compared to those who took the same exam two years later. It also makes sense that if you are going to take an A level in something then you will find it easier if you continue straight on from GCSEs rather than having a gap of a year or even two.

Is there a choice as to what is taken in which year ragged ? I think if mine where forced into a spread out system of taking GCSEs then I would try to make sure they "saved" any subjects that my DCs might want to carry on with and any that I thought needed some extra maturity such as essay type subjects.

Years 7,8&9 are Key Stage 3; they used to take a SAT test at the end of it. Since they abolished the Y9 SAT test an increasing number of schools have squashed the KS3 syllabus into two years and now do GCSEs over three years instead of two. Hence you get systems like yours where they take subjects early. You mark my words - it will end in tears!

In my day, the exams weren't just an indicator that you were grade A good at English and grade C in Geography. They also showed that you could juggle several subjects at the same time. Taking a few subjects a year over consecutive years is not at all the same.

The next change to the league tables, to highlight stuff like this, is to make them state how many were taken at the same time. You mark my words!

It's about time that they introduced a minimum age to enter for GCSEs.

I would love someone to be able to give me a good argument for having lots of GCSEs spread over three years as opposed to building skills over years 9 and 10 and then taking the majority of exams in year 11.

Friend who told me about it the other day said that she thought it was a much better system than traditional, because it didn't bring a huge amount of pressure at the end. It spread the workload out. I would tend to agree with her (my own education system was like this, too). But it's inconsistent, with not everyone doing it the same way nationally (unlike my system), so teens who have the chance & can juggle 9+ subjects in yr11 (a skill they'll never have to display again!), gaining advantage.
I think there is some flexibility about which 2 options in each year, Webwhiz, I will keep your suggestion in mind.

See, I think the old fashioned GCSE system (giant mega important exam at end) lends itself to lazy work for 4.5 yrs, last minute cramming, reliance on short-term memory, & no real in depth learning, interdisciplinary integration or solid understanding. It seems like a very poor system to me, for long term retention. I puzzle at how it ever could have worked well. And too much stress when someone can have unexpected trauma or stress on exam day. I find that part ridiculous. So I'm all for spreading GCSEs out, really, but maybe only if everyone tends to do it that way.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree ragged because I think studying a course for two years and the combination of controlled assessments and exams at the end requires in depth learning and solid understanding. You'd find it quite difficult to cram for 11 subjects and do really well. I think that taking repeated exams over a long period involves a constant low level stress that is draining for kids and takes away any joy in learning.

You'd find it quite difficult to cram for 11 subjects and do really well.

But then why does everyone make such huge fuss out of "revision" at the end? Genuine question! And it lasts all the way thru University (I co-taught on MSc in England).

When I was student at Uni I did all the problems & work & read everything as it was assigned. At the end of term I was fed up with studying & could only do a very bare minimum of revision (I used to work long hours at my paid job instead). We only had 3-10 days for revision, anyway. I almost always did well on final exams, because the material was ingrained, I only needed minimal revision. From what I could make out my peers (saw this on MSc course, too, and heard about it from undergrads in same dept.) had the strategy of doing almost everything last minute & that included a lot of the reading they should have done all the way thru. They dreaded very long hours of revision (weeks & weeks of revision seems to be expected in the UK). I've seen the exam questions & work, they shouldn't have required weeks & weeks of revision unless the person simply wasn't making much effort until those final weeks. I've looked over iGCSE papers, too, and would say the same: shouldn't require weeks of final revision unless little work done before.

There was definitely a culture among undergrads of not much work all term & cramming at the end. They didn't work steadily all the thru because they weren't compelled to. So they crammed. & plenty of them were open about forgetting most the material quickly afterwards. My perception is that the last minute cram/weeks of revision was a strong cultural expectation in the UK, they saw it as normal. I used to boggle my mind wondering how Uni undergrads needed 2-4 weeks of revision before final year exams (I used to do well in equivalent exams with about 4 hours of revision).

You're right, it's anecdotal. English friend argues that if they take the exam too early they forget the material later. Or maybe I'm cleverer than I thought. But the huge emphasis on "revision" in English system looks like a giant CramFest, with info going in and out of short term memory only.

Well "revision" is supposed to be revisiting material you have already studied rather than cramming things into your head. I still remember things I learnt for my O levels in 1982 so they must have passed into long term memory

DS is in year 10 at the moment and he will take one paper of his RE GCSE this summer, he has covered the topics in class and done essays for homework but I would still expect him to spend a reasonable amount of time revising before he takes the exam but its only when you thoroughly "know" something that you can see the links within the material and can move onto the higher skills that will get the highest grades. The same for the science exams he is taking.

I agree that there is the presentation of a last minute culture at university but my experience is that most people that I studied with were actually getting on with stuff as it was set but a the same time running around complaining about having an essay crisis. I have two DD's at university and they certainly do the work as it comes in and then revise for the exams as well. DD1 is studying in america at the moment and she is finding it easy to do well under the constant assessment of the american system but she she does prefer the English system as she says you never get the chance to think about what you've learnt you are to busy preparing for the next quiz.

Completely agree with webwiz. The real test is to sit all GCSEs in one go and still get decent results. The culture of staggering GCSEs means that fair comparisons can't be made either, as senua says. I'm all for sitting all GCSEs in Y10 for more able students, or all in Y11 for those who need a bit of extra time to achieve their potential - but not the current mish mash we have now.

However, you - as a pupil or a parent- are trapped by the system that is run by the school your dc attend.
'options' are, as others have said, usually a case of selecting one choice out of each 'box'. the Yr you take them / the exam board you study / etc., are all determined by the school.
My ds's school decided all pupils would take (both) English at the end of Yr 10. Now, they've realised it wasn't such a good plan and it's not being repeated, but that still leaves everyone in his year a grade or two lower than they probably would have got had they taken it at the 'right' time. It might matter, it might not, but we as parents got no say.