Is igcse science a lot harder than GCSE science

[Worried61]

If a young person has studied GCSE science and got a d grade before. Will they have covered most of the igcse stuff

Cake, where do I say either is easier? They are different and suit students for different reasons. I've no doubt the school you are involved in is making the best choices for their students. My point is those choices aren't open to all. Your argument is overly simplistic. Have you read any of the research you asked for? I'd be interested (genuinely), in any research that supports your viewpoint? It's a mine field that schools are trying to navigate and remains contentious, and this is only likely to intensify in the forth coming years, when the reformed GCSE's start to yield results. My point is and remains, a simple statement of one is harder cannot be made. This is backed up by research, not simply if the top independents do it, it must be harder.
The best advice to the OP, is the student needs to prepare for the test as well as possible (obviously) and the predictability, lack of content change and interference from outside agencies is less with i, therefore this is something worth considering when deciding what to do.

I've re- read my post, it's the research that says this! Not me personally, I can see how you could have interpreted that as me being facetious. It wasn't meant like that. It is actually research. Other research says different, that's the point.

No I haven't read the items you posted because the first one invites me to open six further files and I have work to do. I don't think anyone has time to read through all of that.
I get fed up with the asumption that private schools are somehow cheating the system because where I live they are the top performing schools in the country and they don't need to. IGCSEs have given DS a great start for A levels and I feel very sorry for anyone attempting a MFL language after GCSE because the gap is vast which is probably contributing to why the numbers taking a language at A level have dropped so low.

IGCSE's are definitely harder than normal GCSE's, they cover some of the a-level course and have less coursework so more to learn for the exam. Overall a lot harder and a lot more work

I think although I'm only going on what another poster once said whose DC was sitting GCSEs that the grade boundary for an A (obviously under the old system) is higher for IGCSE. DS had to get over 90% to get an A in IGCSE.
We also were able to compare GCSE science and IGCSE science as DS1 did the former DS2 that latter and it seemed harder, DS2 did a couple of practice AS papers for the scences and thought they were almost identical to the IGCSE (CIE board no course work) and IGCSE MFL's are definitely considered harder by MFL teachers, a few years ago DS2 looked (briefly) at transferring to our local 6th form college and was told that ICGSE in an MFL was the equivalent to an AS level.
I think the point that super selective use them so they are definitely not easier is valid. Why would you not want to prepare your pupils as best you can for A levels/pre Us? (the latter is acknowledged to be harder by UCAS).It would not be logical to let them enter easier exams unless you take the view that extra teaching/learning time created by an easier exam enables staff to teach outside the narrow confines of the exam curriculum which is of course what many parents/pupils and staff expect. Or an opportunity to start in yr 11 preparation for A level/Pre U.
But ultimately its all pretty irrelevant, with a few years no one cares whether you sat IGCSE or GCSE.

The school I work in is non-selective in a fully selective area i.e. a secondary modern.

The couple of years we could enter pupils for iGCSE English our A*-C grades rocketed suggesting that at least the English qualification is much easier.

The Cambridge English IGCSE course is an odd one because there are so many different combinations you can take including rather stangely a speaking test. The easier options have a much higher pass mark supposedly. None of the selective schools I know follow that route, why would they? I think that is the one that it is much easier to pass at grade C, but that is not a grade that selective schools are looking for. It is particularly odd because Cambridge is generally known to have the hardest papers for other subjects e.g. maths.

I would agree that there is very little difference between IGCSE and AS level for languages, DS has been pleasantly surprised and is coasting along nicely.

Compared with the A* -G GCSEs (current y11), there is far more detail to be recalled, but more lenient grade boundaries. Less difference with new 9-1 in terms of recall required. Grade boundaries, who knows?

It has changed now because IGCSE is no longer valid for league tables
but at DCs comp IGCE was definitely regarded as the lesser qualification, used to bump middling kids over the D/C boundary

bright kids exclusively did the GCSE as it was regarded as better prep for A level

at 6th form the kids from private schools with the IGCSE struggled as they had not had a "non calculator" paper

Don't think that really stands up, as cake says, because the top selective private schools have used iGCSEs in many subjects for years (to avoid what they believed was pedestrian coursework and time-consuming modular exam structures, in maths and sciences particularly) and strangely their students are not struggling at A-level. You only need to look at their A-level results to see that. I have no idea if iGCSEs are harder, but they're obviously not significantly easier or disadvantageous otherwise highly academic schools which rest on their A-level results and leavers' destinations wouldn't choose to use them.

Stands up or not, it was the reality

and the fact that well funded schools who did IGCSE were geared up to cope with its gaps for A levels says nothing

DCs and theiir friends compared work books
It may well be that an A* at IGCE was harder to get
but I'm darned certain that C at IGCSE was a darned sight easier

What I didn't think stood up was the narrative that children who'd done IGCSE 'struggled' at A level, because I can't imagine that highly selective schools with top performers in science Olympiads etc are deliberately setting their pupils up to struggle. And they wouldn't be getting eg the highest number of Golds in the Biology Olympiad if the syllabus was so weak.

ontop
they are not setting their kids up to fail
if the kids stayed in their system I'm sure arses would be covered
but when they switch systems, the gaps sare highlighted

not sure what olymipads have to do with anything
DD got gold in hers and it was just a distraction from uni prep

The thing is, the iGCSE to A level leap will be like the 'double science to A level' leap - absolutely fine for schools that do it that way for all their pupils, because they will simply start their A-level teaching at a slightly different point, but much more difficult if a double scientist moves to a school which normally does triple science between GCSE and A-level.

I don't know anything about iGCSE, but i did just want to point out the fallacy that good A-level results must mean iGCSEs are equivalent or harder. As the schools that get excellent A-level results but only do double science show, what matters is teaching from an A-level start point that is the same as the GCSE end point, not the actual level of the GCSE qualification taken.

Cant, I get that, but it would be perverse of schools to increase their students workload post GCSE if they didn't need to. Frankly I don't much care. Maybe these schools are teaching beyond the syllabus anyway so the IGCSE or GCSE is just part of what they teach. The point about the (junior) Olympiads was that Y10 kids would not do well in them if their syllabus was impoverished.

Science IGCSEs have more content. The jump to A level is certainly not harder from them than from the 2010 specifications.

The supposedly easier to obtain C grade at IGCSE because of narrower boundaries etc is irrelevant to selective schools. At DS's school from 1545 IGCSE entries last year only 4 were grade C, and only 58 a grade B. Approx 80% of all entries were A* which is fairly typical for one of the London selective schools. When DS queried with his teacher why they didn't sit the GCSE for all languages as it was so much easier, but just for the challenge language they complete in a year, he was firmly told off and told taking the easy option shouldn't be necessary for boys at his school.
This is a school that gets 60 places to Oxbridge each year and it usually has the top or near top IB results in the world. His school is looking to challenge pupils not the easy option.
I am very happy with my DCs schools and IGCSEs. I think they have been a fantastic preparation for A levels and DS is having a nice easy time at AS.

"at 6th form the kids from private schools with the IGCSE struggled as they had not had a "non calculator" paper"
DS2's school does the harder Pre Us with the further math and physics considered to be exceptionally difficult, approx 50% last year got the equivalent of A*/A in both subjects at Pre U so clearly the IGCSE math/physics is not causing them to struggle.
Apparently sometimes international students either starting French/Latin or with very limited French/Latin in yr 9 sit the GCSE.

they wouldn't be getting eg the highest number of Golds in the Biology Olympiad if the syllabus was so weak.

I don't see why the syllabus would necessarily be responsible for that.

One of the better debates around grammars (last year and not here) was around 'critical mass'. The principle is that if you select you have a higher proportion of chiildren who are subject-enthusiasts and those various school-side academic 'clubs' become more feasible.

I saw that in action recently at DD's comp which is mixed-SES with a quite substantial contingent from the 'right-side of tracks' and seems roughly national average in terms of intake ability. Middling Comp. They started an after-school maths-club for two years, which is 450 children. It didn't clash with anything massively popular and just six children went to it. That club is the source of their current UKMT team and it's where the majority of the relevant extra-curricular maths happens.

I don't know but assume selectives, especially super-selectives, have better uptake with that kind of thing i.e. the critical mass required for a flourishing academic environment beyond the classroom.

Considering the difficulty of CE, top independent schools are going to have no problems getting kids to a higher knowledge level at age 16 than state schools.
Hopefully new GCSEs will help state school kids make a smoother transition to A-levels.

I did O level maths and new GCSE maths doesn't contain all the topics that we did eg. Calculus but I've noticed that they are very wordy.

Pique your right many super selectives to do run math clubs etc as an extra curricular;ar activity DS2 never attended one as it was popular with those without any other interests except math/science math/science geniuses neither did the majority of his friends. I guess it was those who did who were in the Olympiad things, as quite a few over the years represented UK in international competitions. Although I accept that the IGCSE syllabus may not be responsible for this I struggle to accept that it was a hinderance it just doesn't make sense.

That's what I was trying to say, happy. It wouldn't make sense for schools like that to disadvantage their pupils. In Y10 at my sons' school something like 70 kids got a Gold in one of the junior science challenge things. They won't all be going to extracurricular science clubs.

Sorry mistype (actually it wasn't its the MN emphasis thingy) 50% achieved at least the equivalent of A* A at Pre U in math further math and physics all sat ICGSE in these subjects.