This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- What is the point of SATs exams in year 6?
- National 4 and 5 Scottish exams to be scrapped
- Mini Pupillage Experience
- Pay at the Bar
- Should PE be compulsory?
- Examiner vs Teacher marking English Literature
- Will resitting my gcse twice affect my choice of uni
- What GCSEs Do You Need to Get Into Kingston University, London?
- Camp hill girls
- Brighton College 2024 Entry Acceptance
- Looking for some guidance
- retaking year 12
- Hi everyone
- KCL Law
- Process of getting into dentistry
- Working in a school with a physical condition
- Latymer upper scrapping gcse
- Is the 11 plus the unfairest of all academic exams?
- Should I apply to Oxford?
- Ensure fair grading for GCSE and A Level students in 2023 (Government Petition)
Pupils should sit no more than five GCSEs.
Scroll to see replies
Siddd
Are you seriously suggesting that 15-year-olds do not kick the ball around in the playground? (Obviously much more prominent in boys)
I'm suggesting that if they had as much spare time as would be left when only doing 5 GCSEs, they'd get bored of it pretty quickly. Kicking a ball about in a lunch hour is alright because it's short term. In the long term, having three hours a day of free periods would just encourage people not to turn up at all, if all they're going to do is hang out in the playground.
I think the amount of GCSEs you takes should be proportional to your acedemic ability.
I say this because I sat my GCSEs at a low-performing secondary school, which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 40%. There, every student takes a minimum of 12 GCSEs, with some taking 13.
At my sister's school, a private school which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 100%, they take 9 GCSEs.
Shouldn't the school with the bright pupils be taking more, and the school with the low-achieving pupils be taking less? Someone who is predicted straight Es cannot be expected to sit 20+ exams in 12 subjects.
I say this because I sat my GCSEs at a low-performing secondary school, which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 40%. There, every student takes a minimum of 12 GCSEs, with some taking 13.
At my sister's school, a private school which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 100%, they take 9 GCSEs.
Shouldn't the school with the bright pupils be taking more, and the school with the low-achieving pupils be taking less? Someone who is predicted straight Es cannot be expected to sit 20+ exams in 12 subjects.
I really disagree.
I find this focus on "A-levels" quite disturbing. Why focus on A-levels rather than GCSEs? It is just as important for students to have a decent rounded education, which involves a reasonable level of achievement in Maths, English the sciences and the humanities; as it is for students to be able to go into a bit more depth at A-levels.
I also think this idea that schools should be free to set their own curriculum/learn free from the straight-jackets of exams completely and totally unrealistic. Its absolute rubbish to say that students have needs so different that a school should somehow have a different syllabus for each class - and its unrealistic to expect schools to actually do this.
Moreover, people simply won't do any work if there isn't any exams - it may work in Eton, but it certainly won't work in regular schools. Further, working towards exams is a part of life and is a valuable learning experience - we would be doing teenagers a great disservice if they simply spent all their time at school mucking around doing sod all.
I don't understand the argument about "playing outside" either. People have plenty of time to play outside. PE is part of the national curriculum. Are you really saying that people should just be mucking about for most of the day?
I find this focus on "A-levels" quite disturbing. Why focus on A-levels rather than GCSEs? It is just as important for students to have a decent rounded education, which involves a reasonable level of achievement in Maths, English the sciences and the humanities; as it is for students to be able to go into a bit more depth at A-levels.
I also think this idea that schools should be free to set their own curriculum/learn free from the straight-jackets of exams completely and totally unrealistic. Its absolute rubbish to say that students have needs so different that a school should somehow have a different syllabus for each class - and its unrealistic to expect schools to actually do this.
Moreover, people simply won't do any work if there isn't any exams - it may work in Eton, but it certainly won't work in regular schools. Further, working towards exams is a part of life and is a valuable learning experience - we would be doing teenagers a great disservice if they simply spent all their time at school mucking around doing sod all.
I don't understand the argument about "playing outside" either. People have plenty of time to play outside. PE is part of the national curriculum. Are you really saying that people should just be mucking about for most of the day?
Joanna May
I'm suggesting that if they had as much spare time as would be left when only doing 5 GCSEs, they'd get bored of it pretty quickly. Kicking a ball about in a lunch hour is alright because it's short term. In the long term, having three hours a day of free periods would just encourage people not to turn up at all, if all they're going to do is hang out in the playground.
Maybe so, but that's presuming that the 5 remaining GCSEs are of the same difficulty and do not need any additional lesson time.
I agree with that headmaster!
I think we should start narrowing down the subjects we do at a much earlier age so students are much better prepared for their specific career at an earlier age.
In yr9 we pick out GCSEs...but what about yrs 7, 8 and 9?
Those yrs havent been used to their full potentials.
If we could narrow down the career choices just a little in say, end of yr8, then start focussing on a bunch of core subjects in yr9/10, wouldnt it make education later on much easier?
Students would know a lot more about what they need to know, and the harder years of A-levels would become much easier.
In yr11 a lot of students go for 10-15 GCSEs.
Come A-levels theyre doing max 5 subjects and all those GCSE exams are really a waste of time.
Decreasing the GCSEs = more time to concentrate on the subjects which will affect your career.
So instead of just scraping A*s in all core subjects (which means a weaker foundation for further education), youll see 99%'s and a much stronger foundation for studying further.
I think we should start narrowing down the subjects we do at a much earlier age so students are much better prepared for their specific career at an earlier age.
In yr9 we pick out GCSEs...but what about yrs 7, 8 and 9?
Those yrs havent been used to their full potentials.
If we could narrow down the career choices just a little in say, end of yr8, then start focussing on a bunch of core subjects in yr9/10, wouldnt it make education later on much easier?
Students would know a lot more about what they need to know, and the harder years of A-levels would become much easier.
In yr11 a lot of students go for 10-15 GCSEs.
Come A-levels theyre doing max 5 subjects and all those GCSE exams are really a waste of time.
Decreasing the GCSEs = more time to concentrate on the subjects which will affect your career.
So instead of just scraping A*s in all core subjects (which means a weaker foundation for further education), youll see 99%'s and a much stronger foundation for studying further.
taheki
I think the amount of GCSEs you takes should be proportional to your acedemic ability.
I say this because I sat my GCSEs at a low-performing secondary school, which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 40%. There, every student takes a minimum of 12 GCSEs, with some taking 13.
At my sister's school, a private school which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 100%, they take 9 GCSEs.
Shouldn't the school with the bright pupils be taking more, and the school with the low-achieving pupils be taking less? Someone who is predicted straight Es cannot be expected to sit 20+ exams in 12 subjects.
I say this because I sat my GCSEs at a low-performing secondary school, which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 40%. There, every student takes a minimum of 12 GCSEs, with some taking 13.
At my sister's school, a private school which achieves an average 5 A*-C pass rate of 100%, they take 9 GCSEs.
Shouldn't the school with the bright pupils be taking more, and the school with the low-achieving pupils be taking less? Someone who is predicted straight Es cannot be expected to sit 20+ exams in 12 subjects.
Great comment. This is very true. I don't understand why schools feel it necessary to do 12-13: 5 is too many, but 9/10 is enough.
My school (a selective private one at the top of the league tables) did 10 GCSEs (1 early, so only 9 in year 11) because they thought that people would be more likely to hit the top grades that way. Which seems sensible really.... it allows for the core subjects and a decent smattering of extra subjects without a bunch of unnecessary stuff
Siddd
Maybe so, but that's presuming that the 5 remaining GCSEs are of the same difficulty and do not need any additional lesson time.
I hadn't read anything which suggested they'd be more difficult. The article in the OP certainly doesn't suggest they would be harder. If that was the case, surely this would be sitting AS or A-levels early, rather than sitting less GCSEs?
This is very subjective towards the student. Some students are more academic than others and may actually want to do more than 5 GCSE's, whereas others are more suited to vocational options, so maybe only 5 GCSE's would be better and then allowing them to spend the rest of their time on other tasks.
I don't think it should be limited to 5, but maybe there should be a limit that everyone HAS to do at least 5, and no more than 10 (otherwise they may be overloaded with work).
I don't think it should be limited to 5, but maybe there should be a limit that everyone HAS to do at least 5, and no more than 10 (otherwise they may be overloaded with work).
old stuff.
but ok
but ok
We're talking about someone who comes from Eton College, one of the top independent schools. Those students from Eton who sit 5 GCSEs are not destined to failed all of them so it's okay for them whereas people from comphrehesive schools, there is probably a slight chance of them not all passing the 5 GCSEs if you see where I'm going?
Edit. 16.07
Edit. 16.07
I reckon taking just 5 is silly. At that age most people haven't a clue what they want to do later on in life so why minimise their opportunities? Even if they are set in doing a certain subject at uni, they may well change their mind.
Polka_Dot_Queen
I don't think it should be limited to 5, but maybe there should be a limit that everyone HAS to do at least 5, and no more than 10 (otherwise they may be overloaded with work).
I agree with the lower limit, but not the upper one. If a student is capable of doing more than 10, why stop them? I achieved twelve without feeling at all overworked, and there are a lot of people far more intelligent than I am. Having no upper limit on GCSEs is a good way to show to employers the difference between two candidates. If everyone took 10, then there's no difference between two student who achieve straight A*s, even though one might have been capable of more.
Joanna May
I agree with the lower limit, but not the upper one. If a student is capable of doing more than 10, why stop them? I achieved twelve without feeling at all overworked, and there are a lot of people far more intelligent than I am. Having no upper limit on GCSEs is a good way to show to employers the difference between two candidates. If everyone took 10, then there's no difference between two student who achieve straight A*s, even though one might have been capable of more.
Some schools simply don't allow students to take more than a certain number, so you can't really discriminate between students just on the basis that one took more GCSEs than the other, so I think you could argue that an upper limit makes sense. Although I do see your point - if someone is capable of doing more then why not?
Joanna May
I agree with the lower limit, but not the upper one. If a student is capable of doing more than 10, why stop them? I achieved twelve without feeling at all overworked, and there are a lot of people far more intelligent than I am. Having no upper limit on GCSEs is a good way to show to employers the difference between two candidates. If everyone took 10, then there's no difference between two student who achieve straight A*s, even though one might have been capable of more.
I gave 10 as an example, but I do think there should be an upper limit. Employers won't discriminate against people because if both students achieved straight A*'s the chances are that they will go on to study A-Levels or College courses. And it isn't just grades that employers look at too.
yesioo
Although the headmaster of Eton is saying that pupils should only sit 5, I'd bet my right foot that he'd make sure his pupils studied at least 8.
I'm not sure about that... my brother went to a school like Eton and he only took 6 GCSEs and it meant he could take more A/AS levels because they could start them earlier
bob786
I agree with that headmaster!
I think we should start narrowing down the subjects we do at a much earlier age so students are much better prepared for their specific career at an earlier age.
I think we should start narrowing down the subjects we do at a much earlier age so students are much better prepared for their specific career at an earlier age.
Are you actually trying to say the majority of people even have a clue as to what career they want to at the age of 14-16? A good proportion of A level students don't even have a clue as to what they'd like to be, let alone students of GCSE age. You can't prepare people for a specific career at that age, they're too indecisive. I know loads of people that said they'd become doctors or vets when studying their GCSE's, yet now they're doing things like history and law at university instead.
i suspect that the figure of 5 was plucked out of the air as a low point to raise discussion.
15 or so years ago most people took 7 to 10 GCSEs having started with 10 GCSE courses, and those who dropped courses either did so because they were failing or did so at the recommendation of teachers on the basis that 7 or 8 subjects with 5 at or above C grade was more attractive than 9 or 10 Ds and Es ....
some people did take an 11th GCSE but generally it was either music , drama or PE and was taken outside of the normal time table ...
the current obsession with taking huge numbers of GCSEs and A2s will ultimately lead to a decrease in standards as the exam boards become forced to dumb down syllabuses and /or assessment methodology.
a fairly hard ceiling at 10 or 11 gcses would be beneficial as would a hard ceiling of 4 subjects + general studies at A2 ( if you can't pass general studies at A level with a decent slew of GCSEs and reasonable perofrmance in your AS and A2 subjects then you are working too hard !!!!! - i.e. your general knowledge and the like is suffering )
15 or so years ago most people took 7 to 10 GCSEs having started with 10 GCSE courses, and those who dropped courses either did so because they were failing or did so at the recommendation of teachers on the basis that 7 or 8 subjects with 5 at or above C grade was more attractive than 9 or 10 Ds and Es ....
some people did take an 11th GCSE but generally it was either music , drama or PE and was taken outside of the normal time table ...
the current obsession with taking huge numbers of GCSEs and A2s will ultimately lead to a decrease in standards as the exam boards become forced to dumb down syllabuses and /or assessment methodology.
a fairly hard ceiling at 10 or 11 gcses would be beneficial as would a hard ceiling of 4 subjects + general studies at A2 ( if you can't pass general studies at A level with a decent slew of GCSEs and reasonable perofrmance in your AS and A2 subjects then you are working too hard !!!!! - i.e. your general knowledge and the like is suffering )
Related discussions
- What is the point of SATs exams in year 6?
- National 4 and 5 Scottish exams to be scrapped
- Mini Pupillage Experience
- Pay at the Bar
- Should PE be compulsory?
- Examiner vs Teacher marking English Literature
- Will resitting my gcse twice affect my choice of uni
- What GCSEs Do You Need to Get Into Kingston University, London?
- Camp hill girls
- Brighton College 2024 Entry Acceptance
- Looking for some guidance
- retaking year 12
- Hi everyone
- KCL Law
- Process of getting into dentistry
- Working in a school with a physical condition
- Latymer upper scrapping gcse
- Is the 11 plus the unfairest of all academic exams?
- Should I apply to Oxford?
- Ensure fair grading for GCSE and A Level students in 2023 (Government Petition)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
59
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
59
