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

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