AIBU to want my son to take 11 GCSEs?

[mamaliv]

He's currently in year 9 and is having to finalise his GCSE choices. At his school it is normal/expected to have 10 or 11 GCSEs- the normal 7 plus either 3 or 4 electives. DS1 is very very bright and would definitely be able to cope with 11, but has always preferred to coast as much as possible and is insisting he only wants to take 3 electives (so a total of 10). I'm not worried about how this will look to universities etc (he's a bit young for that) but I do think it's not good for him always to take the easy way out! DH is "not going to interfere" which doesn't help...
AIBU?!

Eh?

11 GCSE's is not necessary.

Maths English Sciences Languages are what is important if you want him to look academic. The rest is just not important really.

Actually I think I mean the rest are not important

I don't think kids should have to take 3 sciences Russians :) I do think a breadth of study is good at GCSE - most countries don't allow much i the way of dropping subjects before age 16 and it seems broadly a good thing to keep breadth to me. However my main point was that kids should be allowed to choose their own GCSEs with the school's support, not have their parents choose them or their parents choose how many they do, over and above the standard 8 or so. Most intelligent children have minds of their own and will resent being bullied, coerced, pushed or emotionally blackmailed into taking on extra subjects they don't want to do :o

Oxford used to make EEE offers when I was uni entrance age - obviously they only made them to candidates they confidently expected to get AAA (* didn't exist back then) it was one of the myriad of quirky forms of snobbery they exhibited, if I remember rightly :)

I think the OP's DS is interested in RS from what she says (though not in the other subjects a lot of posters seem to be pushing) but he's just taking the easy way out. Standard boy stuff.

So you'd ditch History too would you Beau? And Geography? And Latin and Greek? I not sure how that's especially academic....

Mr Tumbles :) when I was choosing my O levels oh so very long ago there was a real campaign from the school aimed at persuading both me and my best friend to do all 3 sciences (we got 4 free choices at our school). The campaign was aimed at us personally, but also at our parents. There was a big meeting, with both sets of parents and the head nun and the science teachers, trying to persuade our parents how much of a crime it would be if we didn't both do all sciences.

Her parents gave in, and forced her to do all 3 sciences, she did superbly well, of course, got a clean sweep of As at O level just like me, but didn't do ANY sciences at A level. Not one. Not maths either. Because she had been miserable for the previous 2 years doing subjects she didn't want to do.

My parents did not give in. My mum was very clear, and my dad too - they both said no, she can do what she wants, it's her life. So I did physics, music, history and latin and I was much happier for it - and I had a much more rounded education as well.

MrTumbles It was a 2 E offer - at least, that was the Cambridge offer. It related back to the days of matriculation and 'university entrance' - you needed 2 E's to 'pass' your higher school certificate and qualify for a grant. Of course, the 2 E offer was made if you passed the entrance exam. So, not really snobbery, no, merely an acknowledgement that A levels were not the determining factor in gaining entrance, just a hoop that the government required kids to jump through.

I think history should be compulsory.

Seeker - something we agree on! (Other than books).

Seeker I think you are right - especially learning about questioning the validity of primary and secondary sources of evidence, which is particularly pertinent in today's society :)

See, I've never felt that three sciences were essential, Seeker, because of a snobbish subject-biased feeling that 'there's physics, and the rest is stamp-collecting' (who was it said that?).

So kids should be allowed to dump biology early and get on with some real science if they want to.

(Russians -- I did physics and Latin for A level, to the bemusement of the staff!)

Yellow I sometimes wish I had done geography. Although not at the expense of the subjects I did do - but I feel the loss of that opportunity to obtain knowledge far more keenly than I do the opportunity to know more about biology or chemistry.

RS is a great subject, I think - and certainly it's one which forces the kids to develop specific writing skills which aren't necessarily required by the other man GCSE subjects. I personally think it's far more useful for a wide range of future options than say biology.

I know this is now quite off topic but I really disagree with the discussion about how terrible it is to 'force' kids to take all 3 sciences at GCSE. The jobs we need to fill in the uk (and internationally) that we cannot fill right now and won't be able to for the next 10 years at least are all science and engineering jobs, and to do those we need children to be educated to gcse in all three sciences plus maths and English and a Mfl at a minimum. History and geography awesome but not as essential. Tis particularly true for girls who tend to drop physics at14 if they are allowed to. Now, of course, part of this is about better science teaching and better public debate around sciences to get people intrigued in what it can do, but IMO the schools are really helping by making sure our most able teenagers don't mAke a life changing decision at 14 that they aren't yet equipped to understand the consequences of (with apols for terrible grammar).

See what I mean about witless orthodoxy? :(

DD is very arty but is doing triple science - it is nonsense for any bright child not to do triple science IMO. Inexcusable in fact.

I too think that the difference between 10 and 11 GCSEs is no great shakes. Providing, that is, the GCSEs are properly taught. DS will do 10, DD 12 but the difference in the quality and depth of the teaching between the two schools is immense. DS's school teaches the subject rather than teaching to the test. DD's teaches to the test, which makes the transition to A level an awfully big leap.

What's inexcusable is forcing those bright kids who have no interest in science and who will not be doing science A levels or anything related to science later in their lives, to do 3 sciences at GCSE and narrowing their options to do something they might enjoy or be good at or which might enhance their future careers. Of course many many kids do want to do one or more science at gcse level. Many want to do all 3 - I suspect both my younger two will actively choose to do all 3 whether or not they are forced - but many don't want to do that. And other equally important areas of education are being short changed because of this - and those kids with other interests, strengths or ambitions are being shortchanged too.

I'm quite in favour of compulsory PE GCSE, especially for girls. I've seen too many at that age who do no exercise at all, so to strongly encourage them to try their best at 4 sports seems an excellent idea, and I've seen it work too. The exercise benefits them hugely and may well set up good habits for life - if there's a less than stellar grade on their results sheet, so what? It's only PE and unless you're applying for a sports job or equivalent nobody will care.

By the way it wasn't just oxbridge that gave EE offers back in the day, I had an EE offer and an EEE offer from non oxbridge universities - they had much less excuse for it as unlike oxbridge they had no entrance exam (though they did all interview back then), so it wasn't an exclusively oxbridge form of snobbery MrTumbles, and probably wasn't even a form of snobbery at all, it was just the accepted way back then for universities to try and encourage you to choose them over elsewhere.

I don't agree, Wuldric. Where I think the flaw lies is in insisting on equal dibs for all three sciences. Why not let a keen botanist do just biology and forget physics, and a budding astronomer miss out the biology? They really aren't that similar as subjects.

We don't insist that children do a split syllabus of art'n'music'n'dance, or French+German+Spanish, so why this odd lumping together of sciences?

It is a supreme act of indulgence/neglectful parenting to allow a bright child not to do 3 sciences at GCSE. Children should be taught about stuff that they have no interest in. Our education system allows a very high degree of specialisation at 16-18 as it is, why narrow down earlier?

Oh god, not compulsory PE unless it omits all competitive sports please. Compulsory exercise, maybe.

If children should be taught stuff they aren't interested in, why only in science, Wuldric?

BTW DS1 did just double science, because he was only interested in the physics and 'could not stand any more bloody biology than he had to' (has OCD, and a strong bloody-minded streak on top).

He would have quite happily done the full syllabus of single-subject physics and even chemistry but that wasn't a possibility with our current daft system.

June if there's a less than stellar grade on their results sheet, so what?

Really? You genuinely think that's an appropriate comment? Or sentiment?

I can only assume you don't know any dyspraxic people. :(

Oh - and before you make any assumptions, I run 5 or 6 times a week and I;ve run half marathons. If the compulsory PE GCSE you are proposing was 'running' then it wouldn't disadvantage most dyspraxic people (although it would disadvantage others) but it wouldn't be running round the field, would it. It would be 'games'.

Because they're 14 when they start GCSEs. It's bad enough that they can drop science and maths at 16.