How many GCSEs?

I'm not convinced that there should be a minimum quantity of qualifications, other than decent grades in the subjects required by the employer for the chosen career path. For example, somebody with a keen interest in nursing would be expected to have a good grounding in biology, chemistry and maths. Though it's not really fair to expect school age students to know what they're going to do with the rest of their careers - possibly pursuing subjects that have no relevance to their eventual employment. But that's a subject for another debate.


When I left school in the mid 80's, I seem to remember there was a "core" of Maths, English, one science, one foreign language and one craft. This was what most employers demanded back then, and you were expected to achieve decent pass marks in these five subjects. Anything over and above this was a bonus. These "extra" qualifications were the student's choice from the "options". In my case, the extra options were two further sciences, arithmetic, an additional language and art (yes, art - but only because I couldn't decide which "enrichment" option to take, they all seemed like a waste of time, so I left it blank and was slotted into the subject - and having absolutely zero artistic talent, and even less interest, I achieved a grade that was well towards the wrong end of the alphabet).


I'd agree with the earlier post about "quality over quantity", but my own feeling is that many exams are simply a memory test, and as such aren't a true indicator of a student's ability. In the "real world", you're not expected to recall formulae, passages of scripture, etc. I've known many people who are very intelligent, very capable, and have done very well in their professions, but who go to pieces in exams.

I'm not convinced that there should be a minimum quantity of qualifications, other than decent grades in the subjects required by the employer for the chosen career path. For example, somebody with a keen interest in nursing would be expected to have a good grounding in biology, chemistry and maths. Though it's not really fair to expect school age students to know what they're going to do with the rest of their careers - possibly pursuing subjects that have no relevance to their eventual employment. But that's a subject for another debate.


When I left school in the mid 80's, I seem to remember there was a "core" of Maths, English, one science, one foreign language and one craft. This was what most employers demanded back then, and you were expected to achieve decent pass marks in these five subjects. Anything over and above this was a bonus. These "extra" qualifications were the student's choice from the "options". In my case, the extra options were two further sciences, arithmetic, an additional language and art (yes, art - but only because I couldn't decide which "enrichment" option to take, they all seemed like a waste of time, so I left it blank and was slotted into the subject - and having absolutely zero artistic talent, and even less interest, I achieved a grade that was well towards the wrong end of the alphabet).


I'd agree with the earlier post about "quality over quantity", but my own feeling is that many exams are simply a memory test, and as such aren't a true indicator of a student's ability. In the "real world", you're not expected to recall formulae, passages of scripture, etc. I've known many people who are very intelligent, very capable, and have done very well in their professions, but who go to pieces in exams.