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?!

As it appears to be becoming more difficult to gain top grades, would that not be a good enough reason to take 10 rather than 11? Concentrate the extra effort on pushing for straight A*s as he sounds capable?

There was some mention up thread of possibly only needing 5 or 6 GCSEs?
Having recently done the 6th form rounds, we came across 2 schools that required minimum 8 A* to Cs for external students only, another the same for all students and another 7 to be allowed to take 4AS. All comps.

Also mentioned, was the need for 2 instruments for A level music. I believe the same instrument can be played for both performances, although some boards may require one to be an ensemble performance. Happy to be corrected.

Thanks for all advice/input. Don't know where this thread turned into a debate about triple science vs dual award but have read it all with interest! We have heard at DS's school only those who are really, really struggling bump down to dual award, and triple is otherwise the norm. Anyway DS is thinking about medicine so would definitely go for triple regardless. As I mentioned above, he's never been into creative subjects and didn't even consider them among his electives, but I do agree with many of you that it's important to have breadth and creative subjects can be something fun and different for those who are so inclined. I won't force the 11th subject on him as I do believe it's unfair to "coerce" children into doing particular subjects (as someone termed it above). However, I am still worried about the work ethic he's starting to build- as almost all of you have said, 11 GCSEs are by no means necessary if you look at the collective grades of the country as a whole, but taken within the context of his school and the courses he's likely to aim for after A levels, I still believe there is a lot to be said for the academic rigour of balancing a workload and think it will serve him well for the future. We'll sit down for a chat tonight and I'll tell him all of this! Thanks again for all your help

Well, teacher- I think it all depends on whether Boos is looking at your DC's results as s/he appears to be basing it on their own experience (amazing, apparently) rather than 'what the DC might require to do well in future'.

However, I don't think boos is the Admissions Officer at the outstanding 6th form DS hopes to attend so I shall continue to push for him to do well in triple science, rather than double, as I know, from direct enquiry, that a bit of music and some history isn't considered the equivalent of good score in that individual science when it comes to that DC being admitted into that science A level as they value the opinion of the (many outstanding) secondaries, and don't rely on boos opinion, therefore, if a DC wants to do a science A level but has done double award in a school that offers triple they do this: and wonder why..

And I have to say this whole 'question whether the university was the right place for my child' thing seems a bit precious since was are now talking about adults, themselves. Like, one might say, "never will my precious offspring darken your doors because that university dare wonder whether that arts GCSE was taken in place of an extra science GCSE because my DC wasn't capable of passing that extra GCSE! Obviously they would have passed that third science with flying colours but we chose to broaden their GCSE results with some- er- music, or whatever".

How very dare they! But your DC may not get that place, awarded, as it was, to a triple candidate with good results.

It does however look as though Boos, like myself, is involved in recruiting. So perhaps best not to completely discount her views, hmmm?

Triple science may well be vital for science A levels in some parts of the country. Science A levels are obviously vital for science degrees and science careers. If you don't want a science career though - which is, and will continue to be, most people - then you will be better advised to study subjects which give you an edge in the non-science-career marketplace.

Erebus, which remains my question - since DS will almost certainly not have the opportuinity to do triple science (this from an 'oustanding' comp with a great reputation, where from a perusal of the leavers' destinations the double science does not wholly limit their ability to get into Oxbridge, Russell Group etc), through the school's fault in not offering it rather than any choice that he might make, what in your view is the best way to proceed?

mamaliv Sorry for the double/triple hijack! I was part of that, if not all!

Now, my opinion. If my DS can pass subjects that count in an RG sort of way, that's what he'll bleddy well do in secondary. 'Fun' and 'creative' obviously have their place, but as I said, upthread, you actually don't need them if your future trajectory isn't in those areas. I do 'fun' and 'creative' with the DSs; if they are capable of serious and objective at school, that's what I want their teachers to impart. Y10 and 11 are but a tiny fraction of their lives. A fraction I am prepared to 'assist' them through in dedicating to Getting On With It in order to gain admission to the 6th form they want to get into, and maybe then the RG unis they want to go to.

Is it 'important to have wide breadth and 'creative' subjects on board? (Does Bill Gates have an Art 'O' level? ). If one's DS is obviously science/maths based, why 2 humanities? Art? Drama? Unless of course they are genuinely an amazing all-rounder, but even then, will their 'all-round' status push them back when colleges decide which nerds will do computer science, and which might drop out to do interpretive dance, as that avenue is still well-open to them? Of course, I am being a bit facetious, here, but it makes my point.

Double award won't limit him if he wants to go down the science route teacher and he can explain very easily in his UCAS application that he'd have liked to have done triple science but unfortunately that option wasn't open to anyone at his particular school - nevertheless .... (etc.).

I recruit, as well! Fancy. I get to look at a myriad CVs too. Many, many from local schools, as yes, we (not just 'I'), do a small frown when we see double science rather than triple from schools that offer triple unless that candidate has made a bloody good explanation as to why they want to pursue our 'science' yet have a host of Arts GCSEs, and usually, a mid-grade science A level plus 2 or 3 arty ones but not 'triple science' GCSE. ( We wouldn't look at them without that science A level).

teacher- your DC need to make it clear that triple wasn't an option. That should be sufficient. If they get A or A* in double award from a double-only school, we, as recruiters, would understand why, and would take the rest of their results, and an 'explanation' into account.

I readily admit that I wonder whether DS would be better off doing really well in double science providing Bio doesn't let him down, than getting A's in Phy and Chem but a C or D in Bio GCSE, in the long run...

mamaliv DS1 and one other student in his year at his school took 12 GCSE in Y10 and both got A* in all subjects. The DM interviewed them on results day and both said that the real challenge in doing 12 in one go was the juggling of the workload with everything else that both were doing in their lives. I don't think it's a great surprise that both are now at Oxford reading Medicine. You mentioned workload/ Medicine. Heavy workload isn't exclusive to medics of course but if he wants to go in that direction he might as well get his head round that aspect now, or he could very well flounder.

Both our children's highly academic independent schools have assured us that they have no problem with students taking science A levels with double IGCSE science, rather than triple. They have said this over and over again.

Is this because there is a difference in the range covered by the IGCSE as opposed to the GCSE double science? It does seem quite a 'difficult' pair of awards. My son is bright, predicted mostly A*s and As except for the IGCSE double award, which he has found hard. My daughter might want to do science A levels but has plumped for double science IGCSE too, having been told by four separate science teachers that it isn't a problem. I am puzzled as to why there is this discrepancy in views.

I think that is a good call to let him 'only' do 10 GCSE's (make sure you milk what a kind and reasonable Mum you are )

I wouldn't worry about his attitude to work just yet. I am sure he will pick it up when he needs to.

It's pretty impressive he is already thinking of medicine.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound showy-offy in my last post (nothing to show off about particularly), but just trying to make the point that a lot of very academically picky schools don't seem to have a problem with double science GCSE followed by science A levels.

Erebus - well, if you are in a business that requires a science A level (nothing about degrees I see. And local schools? Really? What sort of people are you actually recruiting?) then presumably it's a science based role. Which most professional careers are not. I am happy to bow to your experience whatever it is, in your science based industry/business. If people want science based jobs or careers then clearly they need to do science based subjects. Perhaps you will accept that those of us recruiting at high levels in non science based professions know what we are talking about too?

I certainly don't see why biology, chemistry and physics are inherently more 'academic' than geography, history or RS.

They aren't.

No, I agree (well I would, as a chemistry and physics refusenik :)). I'm only ok with mandatory triple science because mine had enough other choices to do what it was that they wanted to do.

Is it 'important to have wide breadth and 'creative' subjects on board? (Does Bill Gates have an Art 'O' level? ).

Yes, I find it prevents attitudes like yours, which can only be a good thing.

Re. Bill 'college drop out' gates, no, no Art 'O' level, given that he was educated in the states. The USA has always encouraged less early specialism than the UK though.

They aren't- but I feel soooo strongly that we need all our young people to have a really firm grasp of scientific method- there's much anti-enlightenment bullshit being peddled around that they need to learn to think like scientists. Whether that's through physics or critical thinking I suppose it doesn't really matter.....

Sir Jonathan Ive, on the other hand, probably has art O and A level. Given that he studied industrial design at poly.

The only bullshit that I see being peddled in this thread is the witless orthodoxy about triple science. :)

I didn't mean on this thread- and I've already said that I know my emotional attachment to 3 sciences is wrong!

I meant in the world at large- people need to understand what they are being told, so an understanding of scientific method and basic statistics are absolutely vital life skills.

Just giggling, seeker - having had a long rant at my class about the importance of understanding probability when they weren't paying attention in a Maths lesson. Think the measles epidemic came into it somewhere....but I did tell them it was probably one of the most important maths lessons they would ever have in terms of the decisions that they made about their lives, so they had better start listening!

I think it's adults who need to be forced to understand probability... It infuriates me every time I hear the infinite monkeys/typewriters/Shakespeare thing being trotted out as though it offers any sort of comment on monkeys or shakespeare!

Seeker - I agree with you that people need to understand, oh god, so many things, not just what they are being told, but what they are not being told, what they can see......They also need to be able to communicate. IME science subjects, at either GCSE or A level or indeed at degree level are not the best training in communicating, and they are no better at providing analytical skills than subjects such as history or English. 'Scientists' (using the term to mean people with GCSE or A level science qualifications rather than Tim Berners Lee) are no more and no less likely than any other person with a similar level of education to be gulled or otherwise taken in by any number of false orthodoxies. As we can see in this thread.

I have been privileged to meet many highly intelligent people from all over the world both while at Cambridge and in my subsequent career. The best minds I have met have been the history graduates. Without a doubt.

Actually, just making sure that everyone leaves school knowing that (and why) correlation does not equal causation and the plural of anecdote is not data would make the world a better place.