Can anyone explain what are good and bad gcses?

[Schoolsec]

DS choosing options for September (Year 9). Apart from core subjects wants to do P.E , History, French, but wants to do Business Studies. Someone at work said it is not recognised as a good subject. Should I encourage Geography instead? DS is bright and capable. The Apprentice has a lot to answer for..

Completely agree with you happily.

zapostrophe - I think that's crap. Teachers don't limit their advice to middle class students. Maybe they don't get it at home, but I don't think what you say is fair. And I resent your implication that BTEC subjects are "doss" subjects.

I'm afraid that there is an awful lot of truth in what Zapostrophe wrote. BTEC isnt 'doss' but I think that students have to work too hard for the amount of credit they get for the qualification. Universities on the whole want applicants with qualifications they recognise. This isnt snobbery, they want to be sure that their students dont bring down their averages.

Universities need to consider how their admissions policies are inadvertently discriminatory. Perhaps where a pupil comes from a private/high achieving school they should give less credit for all the extras which private schools give their pupils.

Children at private schools and high achieving state schools get an awful lot of advice and extra-curricular activities which children at lower achieving state schools dont get:

• subject choice
• advice on UCAS applications
• various volunteering activities
• music lessons etc

All of these combined with good results (achieved through targeted lessons and after hours tutoring) in subjects they recognise produce an applicant who is instantly appealing to a university.

The lower achieving schools could also do this but unfortunately they are too busy making sure that the majority of their pupils get through to 16 without getting pregnant or developing a drug problem.

Suzie - you clearly have no experience at all of "lower achieving" schools. I find your entire post incredibly insulting, and really do think you're talking bollocks.

"The lower achieving schools could also do this but unfortunately they are too busy making sure that the majority of their pupils get through to 16 without getting pregnant or developing a drug problem."

WTF?

Suzie is talking extremes here obviously (and, I would wager, has never set foot in a 'lower achieving' school) but EvilTwins, how do you explain the prevalence of privately educated students in the top universities??

I am sure you do not think they are more clever, but the obvious point is that the private sector certainly do not tend to encourage their pupils to take less academic GSCEs or BTECs, so the universities must like something about the more traditional GCSEs.

All of this is only relevant to pupils who want to apply to 'top' universities for oversubscribed academic courses, and pupils have to know what is or is not acceptable to the universities in order to compete on an equal footing.

I don't particularly think it is right or fair, but I do think it is wrong for pupils to be told all examinations/qualifications are equal when they quite patently aren't.

I don't think there is a simple explaination, loungelizard. One factor is certainly culture - in the sort of school I teach in, many students do not come from families where parents have been educated to degree level, and therefore it's not perhaps the "obvious" thing for the students to do - in their own opinions. Also, money is a huge factor. It costs an awful lot to go to university, of course, and many students from poorer backgrounds simply cannot find the funds, or cannot conceive of spending three years getting into debt - and there's an awful lot in the media to put kids off going - all this talk of average debt and so on. Many students from poorer backgrounds would, perhaps, rather get a job, and therefore be able to contribute to the family funds.

The other thing that must be pointed out (thought it's blindingly obvious) is that most kids have to pass some sort of exam to get into private school, so private schools don't accept the kind of kids who won't get into university in the first place. I think it's over-simplifying it to suggest that "more" students from private schools go to university. A greater percetage of private school students do go to university, sure, but that's because private schools don't start off with such a mix of abilities.

I went to a top university (not Oxbridge, but RG) and there was a good mix of students from state and private schools. That was nearly 20 years ago though, and things have changed - BTECs were not seen as "acceptable" qualifications then. My concern with this whole thread, really, is that I simply think it's wrong for people of an older generation (and by that I mean academics, parents, employers etc) to demand stagnation in the secondary education sector, and to demand that students can't move on and study interesting, innovative and new subjects, because of snobbery and this insistance that newer subjects are somehow less worthy. I would be willing to bet that the same debates happened when comprehensive schools were introduced, when GCSEs took over from O Levels, and when AS and A2 exams took over from standard A Levels. If we don't allow education to move iwith the times, how can we expect our children to compete in a global market? And this whole thread is interesting when juxtaposed with another thread somewhere about how education should be catering for every individual student individually, and ensuring that they get to reach their full potential, academically, creatively and in every other way.

Sorry - bit ranty. This pisses me off though. I teach BTEC Performing Arts. All but one of my (rather small) Yr 13 class are going to university.

Yes, I agree with you really. There is a need for more vocational qualifications and not all children are, or ever can be, academic. It is quite right that there are qualifications that they can obtain, especially if the school leaving age is going to be extended.

But, I still stand my ground that not all qualifications are equal and it is unfair and unkind to suggest to pupils that they are.

Suzie - whilst I have no first hand experience of lower acheiving schools, I disagree that children from a less priveleged background do not have access to music and voluntary activities. There are more youth centres and special projects set up in the deprived areas than elsewhere. And some of the specialist music schools offer funded places for talented children with pArents on low incomes.

EvilTwins - I agree that education should move with the times, and BTECs have there place. But I would still not be over impressed if either of my DDs came home saying they wanted to do a BTEC in childcare or hairdressing.
What would be a move forward though is to see the International qualification mote widely available as an alternAtive to A levels. Far better for a child that enjoys several subjects and is unable to make the choice at 15/16. IMO this is where the private schools also have the edge.

"I would be willing to bet that the same debates happened when comprehensive schools were introduced, when GCSEs took over from O Levels, and when AS and A2 exams took over from standard A Levels."

And your point is? Most agree that public examinations have been dumbed down: the introduction of GCSE and AS/A2 have not been an undiluted triumph (why else have Universities had to introduce entrance exams?). Many others agree that Grammars were the way out of poverty for poor, bright children: now they are forced to go to a low-acheiving comp where they stand a chance of being bullied for being a geek.

The Sutton Trust did some research recently on why the top Universities are overly-populated by children from 'good' schools. Once you take out the factor that if you haven't got the grades than you don't get in, the next biggest factor was ... if you don't apply then you don't get in. Durrr. Kids from lower achieving schools don't get in because they don't apply!

""I would be willing to bet that the same debates happened when comprehensive schools were introduced, when GCSEs took over from O Levels, and when AS and A2 exams took over from standard A Levels."

And your point is?"

Um, my point is that whenever the education system changes, people moan about it and whinge that things are getting easier blah blah blah. And this whole thread started with a question of whether the OP should allow her DS to take (shock horror) Business Studies rather than Geography so my point is somewhat relevent, if you've bothered to read the rest of the threat, purits

However, your other point - if you don't apply you don't get in, is very valid. As I pointed out in an earlier post, many children from poorer backgrounds don't even consider applying for university because it's just not something which is "normal" to them. I happen to think that's a shame.

Sorry to disappoint but I know all too much about low achieving schools as both the schools we use are currently either in or have recently been in special measures for reasons of bad management and bad teaching (I read the ofsted report). Both schools have significant problems with pupil (and parent) behaviour. For a while I was a governor but resigned in frustration. So whatever I am talking it is well above the waist.

I agree that there are facilities available for children from less priveliged backgrounds (though this may depend on where you live) but many children/parents dont know that these exist and dont know that they can make a difference to university applications. High achieving independant and state schools often offer up these activities on a plate and expect pupils to take part.

In no way am I saying that this is a good thing. Universities (especially RG)need to recognise the difference between rough diamonds and highly polished cubic zirconium. A child from a low achieving state school with a decent fistful of qualifications and a couple of extra-curricular activities has quite probably had to work hard and show a lot of initiative to get to that point. A child from a high achieving school may not have had to work so hard to get to the same point.

So, Suzie, you know "all too much" about low achieving schools (where, if I can refer back to your previous post, teachers are too busy trying to prevent students from becoming drug addicts and/or single teenage mums to bother to advise on option choices and future plans) because of your experiences in two schools. Great. You are indeed an expert. So whatever you are talking about is based on your own very narrow experiences.

What does he want to do in the long run? As long as his subjects will get him onto the A level/BTEC courses he wants to do afterwards let him do what he wants. He will have more chance of getting better grades if he does something he likes. Also, surely business studies is quite vocational so may actually be useful??

Absolutely babyblues - let them choose. Far too many parents interferring with the choices of their children. It is okay to guide your dcs but then do not come into my office and say Johnny made a mistake or you can't motivate them. Some parents are trying to make children take choices that mum or dad would have liked to have done.

It is hard being a parent but children now have so many choices and O levels are not on the list! Just because mummy would have like to have studied Physics does not mean Johnny must do it.

I think that having some vocational qualifications will make children more empolyable - we have to think of UK plc

happilyconfused - you make a lot of sense and I agree with you.

Geography not Business Studies.
Something other than PE

Bonsoir - have you read the thread at all? Just wondering...

If not, then I hope it's not going to start all over again.

I've read the thread and I'm casting my vote

Don't worry, Bonsoir, I have been on the receiving end of that too.
A patronising "Have you read the thread?" seems to be her stock response when she doesn't like what is written.

Whatever is done regarding advice on KS4 options the parent will undoubtedly be wrong and the cry from child will be 'why did you make/let me do that'.

Who'd be a parent? Damned if we do, damned if we dont. Even here on mumsnet!

"A patronising "Have you read the thread?" seems to be her stock response when she doesn't like what is written."

Oh please. I'm neither that childish or that immature. It's just that Bonsoir's post was obviously a straightforward answer to the OP, and the thread has moved on since then. I happen to respect Bonsoir's opinions on matters educational very much, particularly since she can offer objectional views as someone whose DCs (DSCs, I believe) are educated in a different country.

purits YOU were pretty dismissive of ME, IIRC.

Sorry, that should have been "AND DSCs, I believe"

EvilTwins, the first time you posted about your student who is going on to a Russell Group university with a BTEC I felt it was a big contribution to swing the atmosphere of a thread. I guess I also post the same information frequently where it's relevant.

But I do feel slightly about your repeated reference in different threads to this one student. Good for her. And good for you, since I can't believe you haven't had an influence on her going to the same university you went to (always assuming it is the same student we are talking about here). But I wonder if this one student is being asked to bear too much symbolic weight IYSWIM.

I agree with you about many more vocational qualifications - I think BTECs, HNDs and City and Guilds in a relevant subject are a lot more to the point if a child knows they want to go that route, than GCSEs in a vocational subject. But If a child MAY want to do a fully academic course at a very academic university, then I don't apologise for agreeing with others on this thread that they need to think very hard about the academic strength of the qualifications they are doing. And usually on these threads, the child is NOT sure which way to go, and I do believe that the plain academic subjects give a better pure mental training than the vocational ones. Or they should do, because that's why they exist, don't they?