Andy Millar:


I believe very very strongly that schools should be broadening your knowledge, not narrowing it for some adults' idea of a possible 9-5 job for you - when your idea or the job itself might change completely after a few years anyway! Also, GCSEs are a fantastic "taster" for finding a whole range of things which you (or particularly your parents) might not have dreamed could become a life long interest, whether in work or not. Hence the fact that I encouraged my children to do as many as possible. The actual GCSE qualification is pretty much irrelevant for anything except one thing (see below), it's the new insight that you get on the way that's important.

It's an interesting theory although it's not unique to you. Should schools move away from qualifications towards education? There are certainly plenty of people who believe that English language, mathematics, and a handful of other subjects such as science and possibly foreign languages should be examined leading to a qualification and the rest are purely educational. The problem is the way in which state schools are organised. Independent schools often teach foundation studies in subjects outside of the curriculum which are not examined but it's not possible for state schools to teach them. GCSEs serve a dual purpose in state schools: a qualification for the students and a metric of the quality of teaching. In effect, teachers have to prove to the taxpayers that they are worth their salary. This helps to explain why ICT is an examined subject leading to a GCSE rather than just taught as an unexamined life skill.


I'm a bit dubious about your use of the word "taster" because state schools operate a system of coercion where students have to turn up to lessons; have to put effort into the subject; have to do their homework, or else they get a rollocking. This partially goes back to GCSEs being a metric of the quality of teaching so teachers fear that lackadaisical students, who may well be just using the subject as a taster and couldn't care less if they got a U grade, will cost them their job. It can also be hard for students to drop certain subjects that they have found out that they do not like by Y9 and have no interest in or are no good at. GCSE options are a shadow of what they once were because almost everything is now compulsory.

Mark Tickner:

I'd agree with Andy that perhaps it's useful to may try some different things in your GCSE's if your school offers anything interesting (or just to pick something a bit easier so you can spend time on the important stuff). 

Exactly why I took CSE History (for those who don't know, CSEs were the "easier" option to O levels, potential University material were not "supposed" to be taking any CSEs). It actually had a more interesting curriculum than the O level anyway.


Once again, my experience is that ICT needs to be looked at the other way around - there's no value teaching ICT to scientifically or engineering adept pupils, the ones who need it are those who would not otherwise be introduced to it. I can't see any value in it being examined - except that, sadly, teenagers are a bit daft (I could just put a full stop there! ) about not concentrating on subjects they are not going to be examined in. Anyone who can solve that problem will have made a real contribution to education!


I've just done a quick calculation, assuming a student spends an hour a week on a GCSE, that's about 37 hours a year, or one working week as an adult, two in total to complete the course. Given that little time out of a life (can any of us say every working week of our life has been useful?), I can't get terribly concerned if any particular GCSE is less than perfect. 


Mark, I do agree with you about the "arms race", which starts at birth with Apgar scores! (I still remember how staggered my wife and I were by the other (usually) mum's competing for the "best" Apgar score. To be "average" was to have "failed". I give up on the human race sometimes.) I think as a profession we can help this GCSE question by being very clear that what we want is well rounded people entering, My suspicion is that no engineering manager has any interest at all in exact GCSE grades, types, or quantities. Those who are grade fixated - and of course there are lots - focus on degrees, those who are taking school leavers are looking for enthusiasm and interest. 


Of course this attitude doesn't, prima face, help school teachers who are rated on the grades they produce. But it does, in my experience, help what they actually want to do which is to enthuse the students in their subject.


I don't get the time to do anything like a much STEM Ambassador work as I used to, but I am going into a school next week (meetings permitting ) to talk to Year 7s (11-12 year olds) about what engineering is and pathways towards it - this thread has given me some new food for thought!


Cheers, Andy

Andy Millar:

I think as a profession we can help this GCSE question by being very clear that what we want is well rounded people entering, My suspicion is that no engineering manager has any interest at all in exact GCSE grades, types, or quantities.

Are well rounded people your own personal preference or is it a preference across the engineering industry as a whole? How do you define well rounded people and how does this square with GCSE subjects and grades? Very rarely have I been asked about GCSEs in engineering employment and it is not convention to list them on a CV, so your suspicion is probably right.


There have been concerns amongst parents that admission to degree courses in medicine often requires a minimum of 6A or A* GCSEs and they often give preference to students who have GCSEs in a diverse selection of subjects including music rather than those which are strongly relevant to medicine. Many universities also insist on a foreign language GCSE and often won't accept a GCSE in Latin as an alternative despite it being an essential requirement in decades gone by.  


I have been informed several times that middle aged managers tend to think of secondary school in the same way as when they were at school themself, so could have tendencies to downrate GCSEs in subjects that did not exist whilst they were at school or those that they are not familiar with.

Andy Millar:

I believe very very strongly that schools should be broadening your knowledge, not narrowing it for some adults' idea of a possible 9-5 job for you - when your idea or the job itself might change completely after a few years anyway! Also, GCSEs are a fantastic "taster" for finding a whole range of things which you (or particularly your parents) might not have dreamed could become a life long interest, whether in work or not. Hence the fact that I encouraged my children to do as many as possible. The actual GCSE qualification is pretty much irrelevant for anything except one thing (see below), it's the new insight that you get on the way that's important.

How would you react to a secondary school student who doesn't have much interest in the school curriculum but has serious interests in subjects not taught in schools along with a considerable amount of knowledge of them?


For example, I had an interest in the technical aspects of computers and software during my secondary school years, and would have loved to have taken computer science for GCSE, but at the time computer science was yet to be created and schools only offered ICT which I found to be boring and unchallenging. My interests and knowledge simply did not fit into the school curriculum and experience has revealed that teachers don't really seem to care much about subjects outside of the school curriculum. Another interest I have is politics and economics which I inherit from my mother as this is her specialism. Economics existed as a GCSE at the time. It's a bit basic but it's one that I would have liked to have taken if my school had offered it.


Another issue are foreign languages and how many children in Britain know a particular foreign language but most state schools neither teach them nor offer GCSE exams in them. I'm hoping that with Brexit schools will start taking non-EU languages more seriously.

Andy Millar:

I believe very very strongly that schools should be broadening your knowledge, not narrowing it for some adults' idea of a possible 9-5 job for you - when your idea or the job itself might change completely after a few years anyway!

Take into account that large numbers of people strongly believe that institutionalised education after secondary school, or in some cases primary school, is first and foremost for accessing a professional career, and that such people struggle to comprehend the concept of a liberal education. This situation is most acute amongst south Asians but is not entirely confined to these ethnic groups. When I was at college a high proportion of south Asian students were studying A Levels in mathematics and chemistry for careers in medicine, pharmacy, accountancy etc. with only a small fraction taking arts, humanities, and soft subjects. Even those taking history were looking at careers in law. Very few south Asians went on to study arts and humanities at university.


It has a knock on affect at GCSE level as well. Certain students shun soft subjects or subjects that are deemed to have little relevance to a particular professional career whilst focusing efforts onto subjects that they deem to be important. 

Andy Millar:

Mark, I do agree with you about the "arms race", which starts at birth with Apgar scores! (I still remember how staggered my wife and I were by the other (usually) mum's competing for the "best" Apgar score. To be "average" was to have "failed".