GCSE options...how much do they really matter?

[wordfactory]

DS is currently considering his options for GCSE.
After he's done all the core stuff (Eng x2, maths, science x3, MFL) there are only three choices left.

He's thinking History, Latin and Geography. But then he's thinking History, Latin and Ancient Greek. Then Spanish, RS and Latin. This morning he said History, RS and Latin, then changed his mind back to Latin, Ancient Greek and History...

Does it really matter in the scheme of things? Do any universities really care what they do at this stage?

[Xenia]

I'm surprised a school would allow someone to do an a level in something they didn't do at GCSE.

I did history and geography and so did all the older children except one who didn't do history and later she said she wished she had done it so I will encourage the younger ones to do both as they will only do one language.

[Kathy420]

Gcse options lead to A level options and a levels lead to uni. Also, history sucks.

[Yellowtip]

Even in my day I could do History at A level having not done it at GCSE.

[Yellowtip]

Lots of ways to skin a cat Mordion but hist and geog are a pretty good way, especially where options are limited.

[MordionAgenos]

I'd certainly prefer a child of mine to do geog than media studies or PE or business studies (to take 3 examples). But if, say, Latin was an alternative then I'd prefer that, without a shadow of a doubt. DD1 thinks geog is great though, so what do I know!

History, though, is absolutely vital for any educated civilized person.

[glaurung]

You can easily become knowledgeable in history through reading without taking exams in it. Far moreso than geography. I never did history beyond yr 9 and neither did my dc though we all did geography. I don't feel our education suffered. We all chose other subjects, an extra language, science or another humanity and were all happy with our choices.

[achillea]

I think you should let him do what he wants to do, cut the least useful subject I guess.

[Xenia]

Also if you look at the 1940s subjects grammar school children did for school certificate they were english lang, english lit, maths, a language, history , geog and a couple or 2 sciences and probably RE. Those are really good basic GCSEs to have even in 2013 in my view and just about what my siblings did and all my children. LInguists do more than one language and potential doctors etc make sure they do 3 sciences.

[DontEvenThinkAboutIt]

It doesn't matter. Let him choose based on what he enjoys, which teachers he likes and even, what his mates are doing.

[achillea]

If your child is an all-rounder it probably doesn't matter and a wide choice will be best, but as Xenia says, if you've got a budding doctor, make sure he has the 3 sciences.

Mine was artistic - turns out that she's doing brilliantly in sciences and very badly in art and music.

I'd say take as many extras as you can.

[MissMarplesThong]

I think you have to be careful of harking back to some sort of theoretical golden age of education and trying to replicate that. The syllabuses for all subjects have changed markedly.

The best thing is for your DS to look at the actual content and ask himself if that is what he wants to study for two years.

In subjects like History & Geography there is no time to study the whole subject to great depth. Instead the syllabus tends to focus on a small number of topics. If the topic is of interest then fine but if not the subject could be a trying bore!

[Xenia]

The golden age was only those very few chidlren who did do school certificate. In the UK in 2013 half of children cannot pass 5 GCSEs. The average IQ is 100. Clearly for some children my grammar school list and indeed the list most academic private school children do is not going to be right for all children.

However I do get concerned that some schools do not explain that most bright children do in essence something similar to my list in the best schookls, employers expect to see that and if instead your list has only 2 or 3 academic subjects and then a lot of software ones you have problem. My local comp has 8% of children doing 5 core GCSEs in the traditional subjects. I had thought they had got better recently than the 34% A - C at GCSE they usually obtain (and isn't London supposed to be doing much better in state schools these days too....)... now I can see why - they are all doing childcare, tourism and motor mechanics GCSEs - but that 8% might be absolutely fine. They may well mostly have an IQ of 90 and the fact they are getting any exams at all could be a huge achievement.

[MordionAgenos]

The thing that continues to amaze me is the new orthodoxy that all bright kids have to do 3 sciences.

[MissMarplesThong]

There has been quite a lot of change in the last year. As I understand it there has been a review of equivalences which means that there is less advantage to schools or students to go down the BTEC route simply to acquire a high GCSE equivalency count.

However, BTECs may be exactly the right thing for study of a more practical topic where a theoretical study would be inappropriate.

My DS is going through GCSE selection now. The school is very low performing (3000/4000 in the good times 3800/4000 in the bad times which are now). This school does differentiate the initial subject offerings to students depending on current achievement and assessment of academic potential. Academic students are guided more to academic subjects, less academic students are directed to more practical subjects.

However, this is guidance only. Students are allowed to go against that guidance if they can explain their reasoning and where appropriate make commitments.

I have known a number of very academic students do a very non-academic subject as a kind comic relief from all the heavyweight study. Adding a subject done for fun to a strongly academic range does no harm.

[gelo]

Agree mordion triple science isn't necessary for anything (unless your sixth form is one of the rare ones that insists on it for science A levels). And especially if children are going to do slightly fewer GCSEs with the new terminal rules it means children are less likely to do an extra language or humanity which are just as valuable (if not more so) imo.

[Yellowtip]

Adding a subject for light relief not only does no harm but is actually a very good thing MissMarples but I disagree a little with your suggestion that students generally keen on History or Geography should ditch the idea if the particular subjects in the syllabus don't immediately grab their interest - that shows a rather closed mind. The chances are that, given a decent teacher, they'll find almost any topics pretty interesting once they get into them. The decent teacher caveat is pretty crucial though I suppose.

[exexpat]

I think the syllabus does matter in history and geography. I did history o-level and hated it: we studied nothing after 1840. History then formed a fairly substantial part of my degree, but that was history of countries and eras I was interested in.

DS is lucky that his history course is all 20th century, as he is very interested in modern politicial issues, and many of them arise out of 20th century history (admittedly, some of the roots are even older). If he had to spend half his time studying the tudors, he would hate it. And when it comes to geography, he loves the human/political geography side of things, does extra reading etc, but even his excellent teacher can't get him to be enthusiastic about erosion and glaciers.

[MissMarplesThong]

Yellowtip, while I agree that the decision shouldnt be a shallow one it is well worth looking into the syllabus to see what will be studied. The decision shouldnt be made on the basis of what mum/dad/grandma studied under the banner of a subject title.

If the choice is Geography or History in the core subjects (this is how my DCs school does it) then choose the one that sounds most interesting. In my DCs school there is a high turnover of staff which has a knock on effect in teaching effectiveness.

[Yellowtip]

Of course it's better if you're interested in the particular narrow topic in the first place but not doing the subject at all because it's not immediately appealing is another. I guess it might indicate insufficient interest in the subject as a whole though, so on that basis perhaps give it a miss.

[MissMarplesThong]

That is interesting exexpat my DS was the precise opposite. He was all up to study Geography when he thought he would be studying earthquakes and deserts but lost all interest when he found out that it was human/political Geography!

[Yellowtip]

That's very bad luck if you have a high turnover of staff Marples. If it's either/or, again perhaps that's different. But I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say a 'decision shouldn't be made on the basis of what mum/dad/grandma studies under the banner of a subject title' . Why does what mum/dad/grandma did have anything to do with it?

[Yellowtip]

Surely all GCSE Geography students do both? (mine did).

[seeker]

Going against the grain here- is he interested in doing a Tec subject?

[MissMarplesThong]

Sorry Yellowtip, what I meant was actually check the syllabus rather than making the decision on the basis of what mum/dad/grandma say will be studied under a subject title.

[Nicolajr20]

My daughter is pretty bright and also loves her sport. Is there any downside come uni application time if she takes PE, as long as the rest of her subjects are the more traditional ones?