GCSE exams

[chart53]

Feel current exam cycle, with all 10 GCSEs taken in the Summer, is too much for young people. So far, my daughter has taken almost every day,so 16 exams since the 6.5.13 with another 6 to go this week. She is both mentally and physically exhausted. My older daughter took exams in under the modular scheme given her 14 exams which she found stressful enough! For young people to complete 22 exams in one go seems borderline insane. If Gove wants to reform GCSEs he needs to look at the whole exam not just when you take the exam. I think he needs to try 22 exams in five weeks to see how he fairs!

From my perspective as admissions tutor, I would say that the university courses that use GCSEs for admissions purposes are a tiny minority.

Where I work we currently use AS and A2 predictions and ignore GCSEs, and I am pretty certain so do most of our competitors.

So in my experience for the vast majority of places, as long as you have English Language, Maths and 3 others at Grade c or above will be just fine.

(Don't want to out myself, but I work at an old university with mostly AAA-ABB entry)

Why do you think 400,000 undergrads are wasting their time and money? This is the figure you have come up with of students on degree courses that you think might not be interested in GCSE results. However the majority of those 400,000 will have more than 5 C grade GCSEs, so there isn't a correlation where you think there is.

And don't forget the current year 10s probably won't be doing AS levels, so the only results they'll have on their UCAS forms will be their GCSEs.

It might not matter as Creamteas says. But it might......

Oh and it isn't just Oxford, Cambridge and UCL that are hard hitters llkjj - you need to add in Manchester, Kings, LSE and Imperial at least.

creamteas then clearly the way your admissions process works is different from that of a significant number of the 'hard hitters'. I'm assuming that either your uni isn't a hard hitter or possibly your course is a softish hit within a hard hitter. Nevertheless, you will have to square up to using something other than ASs as a benchmark if those disappear. Relying solely on A2 predictions won't work, for obvious reasons.

I don't believe that 400,000 are wasting their money, Titchy. I hate it when it's implied on MN that only "top tier" is good enough. That is UKIP's attitude, too. I hate elitism. My mother used to rant against it. Makes me shudder.

I think the point I made initially was purely in response to your saying that 5 GCSEs at any old grade will do. Clearly it won't for the top unis. That was all.

However, if a student is clever and motivated enough to go to Oxford or UCL, where is the merit in advising him to aim for the minimum grades in order to get into the easiest-to-get-into uni and then very likely be miserable with an unchallenging course and student peers with whom he may well have very little in common intellectually? Aiming for the bottom isn't not elistist, it's daft.

Also I don't happen to vote UKIP, far from it, but your attempts to denigrate another poster by suggesting they might vote for a political party of which you disapprove is incredibly illiberal and not in the least open minded.

Being pedantic... I disapprove of UKIP's education policy. Who said that I disapprove of them in general or only mention UKIP to cast an insult?

I find UKIP's education policy abhorrent. Very clearly some MNers don't.

I agree everyone should aim as high as they feel capable of & more. Also worthwhile to be realistic about what is truly required and not hand-wring over unachieved ambitions.

lljkk I think we may be veering a long way from the original post. It's not about grammars, university grants or numbers attending uni, it's about GCSEs and whether the linear exams are too stressful. I myself think they're absolutely fine, OP doesn't. You implied students needn't worry about GCSEs because you can get into a uni with a handful of grade Cs. I said I'd rather my kids did worry a bit, because they do without doubt determine entry to some of the most competitive courses and unis. If you find that attitude 'elitist', I might well counter that I find your attitude to education and uni defeatist. At the very least it doesn't suggest that you're a proponent of 'aim high', rather the opposite, presumably because you see that as 'fairer'?

Awful weather for this time of year.......

Molio You don't have to believe me of course, but what 'everyone knows' about admission to good universities is often very far from the truth.

I know, for example, that some of the universities you listed as 'hard hitters', make offers to people that have Ds at GCSE (obviously not in a related subject) and have dropped from ABB to BCC in clearing to fill their places on a range of subjects (and not ones deemed to be 'soft').

I only know this as I work in admissions and, later on in the application process, we can get data on which universities were names as firm or insurance where people also applied to us. I also see when the A level results come out how far universities drop for applicants (where we are the insurance) and at what level universities go into clearing.

Remember, what universities say in public about admissions is also part of their 'brand identity'. So if you came to one of my open days, and asked me about what GCSE results we would be looking for, I would tell you that whilst we look at the whole application, we like to see evidence of exam success. But when I am making offers, you need to pass the threshold level (5x Cs including English and Maths) but it plays no other role in the application process.

There are some institutions that are very keen on GCSEs, Bristol is one. There are also a tiny minority of subjects (eg Medicine) where they matter. But these are a tiny minority, rather than the majority.

When AS levels go, GCSEs will probably be used more again. But this is a bit unfortunate as our data indicates that GCSEs results are not a good predictor of degree outcomes (which is exactly why we don't really use them).

creamteas I know a bit about admissions too but perhaps from a slightly different perspective. Different universities claim that their own preferred data is the most reliable predictor of degree outcomes. For example Oxford likes the data which says an unbroken string of GCSE A*s is the best predictor of distinction at degree level (which is not to say you need an unbroken string to get a place) and you say your own uni prefers ASs. That's fine. There are plenty of examples on each side. I completely accept your point that not all universities stick to their marketing message.

I think one should also not forget that a student with 5 grade Cs at GCSE is unlikely to shine at AS, especially if they've taken the view that they don't need more than minimal grades. So the quibble about which exams are relied on for admissions is only useful up to a point. There may be exceptions where a mediocre student comes into his own in the sixth form, but much more usually it's a consistent trajectory, mitigating circumstances apart.

I'll bet that where the big guns make a lower offer to a firm candidate they'll only do it if that candidate has other tariffable quals - grade 6+ music for example - those league table places are important!

creamteas I've only mentioned Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial and not in a 'hard hitter' context. But which of those has gone into clearing offering BCC as you claim, and which subject? I assume you're talking about 2013 entry?

I'll bet that where the big guns make a lower offer to a firm candidate they'll only do it if that candidate has other tariffable quals

Absolutely! And don't forget an A in General Studies ticks the A box for getting outside the student number controls.

Molio The data I see is privileged and, on the off chance that I am/or might be outed, I am not going to risk my job by naming specific universities.

I would say that it is more common to have a range of grades (eg 3xA 3XB 2xC 1xD) than either a clear majority of As or a clear majority of Cs.

creamteas I don't think I've seen a post by you which isn't prefaced by 'as an admissions tutor' etc. You know very well that those unis haven't entered clearing, come on! What does 'privileged data' mean? Anyone in the industry knows that Oxford and Cambridge do not enter clearing. You can't hide behind 'privileged data'! Well, you can, obv. but it's not in the MN spirit!

And in response to your last post I'd say it may be more common for applicants to your uni to have a range of grades at GCSE but at Oxford or Cambridge or UCL or Imperial etc it's far more common to have a clear majority of A*/A grades, hence the circularity of these posts.

Hmm... It is not whether universities do or do not take GCSE results into consideration.. my niece attends Cambridge and she did not have all A&A*s at GCSEs. The issues is whether the rollercoaster of 24 exams over fives weeks is healthy for YP. I have just seen my DD`s friend, just like DD she looks so tired and pale .. there is nothing left... she has one more to go... at least we are finished.. I know some schools do IGCSEs but they involve ( not less work) but fewer exams/ CAs. From my understanding universities are somewhat sceptical about GCSEs.. ..possibly because they exist, and are important only so we can measure Secondary Schools . The YP are just exam fodder to fuel League tables, and give politicians something to hit each other over the head with.. education has always been a political football.

chart53 since GCSEs are not an end in themselves, it actually is to some quite significant extent how unis view GCSEs. Particularly since university degrees have become such common currency in the past decades.

I'm sorry that your DD and her friend are so drawn and pale but I'd say that that was down overwhelmingly to their constitution, rather than to the current model of GCSEs. DS is brown as a berry but bored with the long drawn out timetable of exams and his friends all look equally healthy. They're twiddling their thumbs to get the two maths papers over but meanwhile are out playing football or walking their dog.

It's survival of the fittest out there that's for sure and that also means mentally.

I don't think exam stress and pallor is necessarily down to constitution. I think schools, some parents and the peer group all contribute to the stress levels felt by children. Some girls at DD1's school were in tears on results day because they got one A instead of the full set of A*s.

DD burst into tears when she opened the envelope because she got a B in history thanks to her disastrous controlled assessment - it was later upgraded to an A when an exam paper was remarked. The 10 A*/A weren't good enough!

She did F- all revision for her GCSEs and was lucky to get the results she did. The positive thing for her was that she realised she really had to work for her AS/A levels and has done so. Some of the girls who got the full set of A* seemed to rest on their laurels and did quite badly at AS.

I meant constitution as in mental constitution, not physical, HP.

creamteas I have to dispute your assertion that universities such as LSE, Imperial etc regularly have students with 5 Cs at GCSE and a couple of Bs and Cs at A level.

Also, even if that were true, which I don't think it is, what does that say about our tertiary education system?

A student who only manages those grades is either of middling ability or has no idea how to apply their intellect or has no interest in doing so.

Is that person really going to thrive on a three/four year course that exists to ask a student to think, read and think some more?

The only reason why students in that category end up on UG courses is because they think they should and they are being sold as a necessity. Filling courses with students with no aptitude or interest in academic pursuits is a sure way to bring down standards!

Haven't read the whole thread so it may have moved on, but DS did his GCSEs two years ago. At his school there was no option of early exam sittings so everyone sat the 25+ exams they had in one summer. DS's school can't have been the only one to do things this way, so I'm glad it's now compulsory and everyone is on a level playing field as, although I think DS was fine there must have been some who would have benefited from the modular system and would be disadvantaged towards their contempories who had done exams that way.

I agree friendface. My elder DC had no option of early exams either. It's absolutely clear that the schools who played the modular game gave their pupils an advantage. It's far better to have a level playing field so that the results of those sitting exams can be properly compared. This system is far fairer. The linear system does also help students to learn how to juggle a large and varied workload. That's another good in itself.

Word I've already disputed it :), but creamteas has yet to respond. I think creamteas may be generalizing from his/her own department and uni, which seems not to require LSE/ Imperial type grades. I'm not sure creamteas gets how much variation there is out there. The top unis do not admit with 5 grade Cs (in the absence of very serious mitigation), end of.

HP my DD was one of those with a single A against her 10 A*. She wasn't in tears but she was certainly pissed off. My reaction was that she'd look peevish if she asked for a remark and she agreed but in fact the school insisted, so it went off and duly went up. All's well/ honour (nearly) satisfied :)