11 Plus Exams Forum

Choosing gcse options. Has 8 compulsory inc 3 sciences and French. Will prob be put in for ad maths too...
Is 8 compulsory plus 2 other gcse options enough or should she really consider 8 compulsory plus 3 others (inc a new language)?
In short, is 10 gcse's (plus ad maths) enough to keep good uni place options open?
She is towards top of class in selective school. She says that she would work to get good grades but I don't her to be overwhelmed by work if not necessary.
Would be grateful for your opinions
Thanks

10 is plenty - particularly if they get good grades. DS did 9 and got A* in all of them,

and with 9 a* - did he have all his doors left open iykwim?

yep - 3 science, one language, 2 humanities, 2 english, maths at GCSE (+FSMQ)

4 A levels and offers from top universities.

It will be plenty now they have to take ALL the exams in Year 11.

Quality of grades, not quantity!

Thanks HM and G55. Great to hear that from you pair esp.
Jusy wary of school trying to get her to do more than necessary.
Very helpful

At our options evening last night (GS), the head stressed over and over again that GCSEs aren't a 'numbers game'; that 9 is plenty, and better 9 good ones than 11 almost good ones. The school has introduced the option of a free study choice (4 periods a week) instead of one GCSE (giving 9 rather than 10) for boys who want to consolidate the ones they are doing, or take part in music or art practices, or sport. Seems like a damn good idea to me.

Also the teacher in charge went to great lengths to stress the synthetic nature of the Ebacc - at this school it is not compulsory to take History or Geography - 'we think it is more important boys choose subjects they enjoy than that we look to improve our score on that measure'.

Read my lips Mr Gove - no one cares.

Definitely agree on numbers - better 9 with good grades. However, DD does not follow this and is doing something like 12!

Unlike the last poster I DO think that balance is important and that here the ebacc makes some sense. I really do not think that no humanity, in normal circumstances, makes sense (equally no science or modern language). Non normal circumstances in my opinion might be something like a severely dyslexic child or a recent immigrant with English as a second language - both of whom might do better with a clutch of decent GCSEs in subjects that they find easier but still show a reasonable balance e.g. maths, science, DT and English.

I have mixed feelings about those who criticise tha lack of creative subjects in the ebacc. Like, I assume, Mr Gove I suspect that there is a bigger problem with lack of balance among the more 'academic' subjects. The reason my daughter is takig a ridiculous number of subjects (apart from 3 sciences and 3 languages) is that school requires an art and a DT subject (though she's very keen on the former if not the latter. However, I do agrre that arts shouldn't be neglected - just not sure if they need legislating for.

P's mum - the problem is the 'narrow' definition of 'Humanities' as Geography or History and not Religious Studies ...

Good schools are offering pupils the opportunity but not insisting on subjects that match it.

P's mum wrote: Unlike the last poster I DO think that balance is important...

Erm, I don't think anywhere I have said that I don't think balance is important, only that I don't agree with the nonsense political tool which is the EBACC. I am on record many times as saying I don't agree with specialisation at all at this age, and I would prefer a broad curriculum to 18.