I dont get this. Why are they better indicators than A-levels. Could you please give us a link of this research rather than just state it. I find it hard to believe that by doing 11 subjects in totally different subjects (half of which are ridiculous) is a better indicator of how well students will doing in a single course whose core will not have such diverse topics.
Also I do agree that teachers and the school do influence GCSE's immensilly. My maths teacher didnt have a clue what he was doing. there were 3 different situations in which I asked him about some exercises and he didnt know what to say just 'Ill get back to you on that'. Guess what the next year he was fired. My physics teacher couldnt handle the class at all, 40 students shouting and having conversation amongs themselves and being at the back of the class you cant hear a thing and you start to lose interest in the whole subject. Dont get me started on my business studies teacher! My point is that why should my uni application be based on how well organised, disciplined my school was because fundamentally thats exactly how the GCSE's grades are allocated, sad but true.