Talk:GCSE/Archives/ 1

Statistics

I've changed Statistics from an uncommon subject to a common subject, because most schools I know offer it to their students (be it only clever ones and a year early :P) 84.71.91.98 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

we have to do stats at my school --Rebeccarulz123 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fast-tracking GCSEs

"Some public schools have even gone as far as removing GCSEs from their curricula and instead encourage their pupils to progress straight to A-level or the International Baccalaureate studies." I was not aware that this was the case; could any example be given?

I have not heard of any school doing away with GCSEs completely before moving onto A-levels, but I know a number of people who have simply become bored by GCSEs and decided to go to a college or sixth form to complete them in a fraction of the time before going on to study their A-Levels.

Also it is not unheard of to include, for example, A-Level maths or biology as well as GCSEs for students who the school deems capable of acheiving these qualifications early.

Eton has from the 2004 intake (so their last results will probably be in 2006) and I believe that Winchester, St Paul's, St Paul's Girls' and North London Collegiate are in the process of doing so.Alci12

Vocational GCSEs

The article talks about the changes happenign in Sept 2004 in the future tense. Have these actually happened yet? Thryduulf 17:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes we do them at my school

Exam tiers

The article says "...next is the intermediate tier, focusing on mathematics..." in a general discussion of different levels of exam. In my knoweldge the intermediate level exam is not avaiable in all subjects, perhaps only in mathematics. Is this what the article means, that in maths there is the 'extra' intermediate tier? I ask this because someone who doesn't know about GCSEs a great deal may take the article to mean that intermediate exams are about mathematics while the foundation and higher level exams focus on other areas. So maybe the article should be changed. Evil Eye 23:37, 24 July 2005

As far as I know, most subjects now only offer foundation and higher tiers for the exams. Regarding your above article, Year 10 students starting the Maths courses this year are taking new courses, which have changed from the three tier system to the two tier. DavidB601 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this applies to new GCSE courses, but I think that the tiers apply also to the qualification recieved as well as the exams taken. If you acieve a grade betwwen A* and C, you will get a higher tier GCSE and if D-G you will get a foundation tier GCSE. The different tiers also count as different NQF levels (foundation: level 1; higher: level 2). I think this point is fairly trivial but worth mentioning. Presumably, when first introduced the foundation and higher tiers replaced the CSEs and GCE O-levels respectively, but the GCSE system does not allow candidates to take both qualifications as was occasional practice before, for candidates who were considered borderline between the two. Also for purposes of league tables only GCSEs of grades between A* and C (higher tier GCSEs, in effect) are considered of interest. --80.44.93.86 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. While Grade D-G GCSEs count as Level 1 qualifications and A*-C count as Level 2, the grades that be achieved on both papers (C, D and E) are considered equal no matter which paper they were achieved on. The tiering arrangement has no relation to the old O Level/CSE split because there were originally three tiers, not two. For interest, GCSE Grades A*-C are equivalent to O Level and Grades C-G are equivalent to CSE (GCSE Grade C being set at the level where O Level and CSE overlapped - O Level Grade C/CSE Grade 1). All this is in the article. - Green Tentacle 13:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the section about Maths being 3 tiers in the past, and it looks wrong to me. Back when I took mine (June 1999), It was foundation D-G, intermedite B-E, and higher A*-C. I don't want to change the article without confirming its accuracy (yes, I am aware of WP:BB), but I think that it should mention that it at least used to be this at one point, with a view to confirming if it was ever as currently stated. --Lardarse 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, screw it. I was bold... --Lardarse 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

As people are always complaining about GCSEs getting easier, I wonder if we could get statistics showing the number of pupils achieving each grade over the years? Soo 18:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Two small issues

1. In Structure "Normally pupils take ten GCSEs, though taking more is not unusual" Students normally take 10? where did this number come from? At my school we could take anywhere between 7 and 12, depending on the subjects we chose...maybe the wording could be changed to 'on average, students take about ten GCSEs, although more or less can be taken, depending on the combination of subjects chosen" Ok, that's a bit wordy, but you get the idea.

2. At the end of History "There are many GCSEs to choose from, with subjects ranging from accounting to Urdu." OK, a) this is not to do with history and b) whey were these ones chosen? i realise it displays the range available, but its a bit unprofessional just shoving that sentance on at the end.

Could I point out that the average pass grade and number of subjects taken in England is 5 at grade C. This would suggest that the normal number of GCSE subjects taken is lower than 9 or 10. The number of GCSE's that are taken is wholey dependant on the school and pupil. I should think that a significant number of the editors on Wikipedia have an above average level of education and therefore are likely to have taken more GSCE examinations. In addtion, there is no citation for the "normal" amount of GCSE's taken. I'm going to see if I can find something to back this up later (Adelphus 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Most people take 9-10, but can only get 5 pass marks (the rest are Us) Eŋlishnerd(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 22:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they only get 5 graded at C or above - meaning that the rest are mainly D, E, etc. with some Us. It would be pretty remarkable if most people got 5 "good" GCSEs (C or above) and 5utter failures... Crana 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

D, E and F are officially a pass. G and U are the only non-passes. However, League tables only count A* to C passes. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Grade G is also a pass. U is the only fail grade. - Green Tentacle 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am too a believe that A*-C are the "good passes";D and E are the "bad passes"; and F and G are simply fails. Many teacher abide by this; I myself do to as D and E will get you onto courses such as B-TECs (which is why these should never by fails) however F and G do not. Moreover, grades F and G are never used as student's target grades as they are simply fails. U is not for fail in my opinion, it is "unclassified".

Corrections

I have made quite a few corrections to the article. I will outline them here:

• Changed description of GCSEs from 'examination' to 'qualification' (because that's what they are)
• Removed paragraph of intro made up entirely of information from later in the article, as things like a history of the qualification are not necessary for a basic understanding (which is what the article should offer)
• Changed the description of madatory subjects: ICT and RE are not compulsary GCSEs, though they must be studied at Key Stage 4 (along with Citizenship, PE and, in Wales, Welsh)
• Changed bit about grades: C cannot possibly represent an 'average' student, as D is the average grade; grades D-G are not fails, they are passes; reworded the U bit because it sounded like Us are only given to those who fail to complete the course; nearly all unis require C or above in English and Maths
• Removed POV bit about schools 'exploiting' fluent foreign language speakers and entering them for the relevant GCSEs
• Subject list: there is no such subject as 'English Language', it is called 'English'; removed English Literature, ICT and RE from madatory list (as they are not), though noted that many schools insist on English Literature also being taken; changed Science description to incorporate the new Science courses being introduced in Spetember (though I'm not an expert on Key Stage 4 Science, so please check for accuracy if you are); removed note saying that GCSE Citizenship was previously mandatory (it wasn't); moved Media Studies to common list as it is increasingly being offered as an alternative to English Lit
• Many minor grammar corrections

- Green Tentacle 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I discontinue my interest in attempting to FA this article. Esteffect 21:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? - Green Tentacle 10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ict is a compulsary subject to do --Rebeccarulz123 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is - and the article already says that. - Green Tentacle 22:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Changed the description of madatory subjects: ICT and RE are not compulsary GCSEs, though they must be studied at Key Stage 4 (along with Citizenship, PE and, in Wales, Welsh)"

Are you sure? I'm certainly not an authority on this, so feel free to correct me, but I gave up RS and ICT in year 9, and have never since had any teaching at all in these subjects, and that is the same for many schools.

Yes, I am sure. As the article says, these subjects must be taught, though not necessarily for any qualification or even as discrete lessons. So while you may not have had any ICT or RE lessons, it will (or should have) been covered by, for example, using computers in English or assemblies with moral discussions. - Green Tentacle 22:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A "Controversy" Section?

Cutting to the chase, everyone knows that GCSEs are so dumbed-down that they are now worthless. Obviously, a wikipedia article worth its salt can't say that. However, it might be appropriate to include a section describing the annual controversy in the press about allegations of dumbing down versus government assertions that the exams are as hard as ever. Although it is bordering on POV, it can be statistically supported to say that the pass rate rises every single year, and short of some kind of profound misunderstanding of logic, we can therefore categorically state that EITHER each succeeding generation of children is more and more intelligent, OR the exams are getting easier every single year. It might be inferred that the increasing uselessness of GCSEs is the reason that more and more private schools have their pupils sit them early, and some are even moving away from them altogether. --Corinthian 12:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "dumbing down"... from my limited experience of contemporary exams it seems to me that modern teaching methods are more geared to getting people to pass exams rather than assimilating useful information for later life. It's a bit like a driving instructor teaching you to drive by repeatedly taking you on the Examiner's test route until you have memorised every pothole - ok, it will get you through your driving test, but I dread to think what will happen at your first dual carriageway... Paul-b4 15:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yer I pretty much agree with Paul (good example) However, I have found that although the exams are easyer there is more pressure on students. I have no evidance for this but it could be usefull to add to the article if proof is found. •Zhuge Liang• ^[Chat] 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be POV, but the GCSE aren't just dumbed down, they are rubbish. Bring back the O' Level and CSE! 82.11.221.164 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision links

I think that there needs to be strict guidelines for which sites should be placed under external revision. For example there is a link to Ashbourne College offers no actual material and gives advice that could be found on any school website.

In my opinion site should only be allowed on there if they at least contain material on the three core subjects (English, Maths, Science) otherwise this section will be used as an advertising base for the countless revision websites on the net. --Sclaydonuk 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The link to the Newbank site is especially useless. Not only is there little actual content, but the website does not look professional and has formatting errors. Therefore I am removing it. --Ma8thew 10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't students get the option to O levels instead for a better qualification?

Changing

Whoever keeps changing Statistics from common GCSe to rare GCSE, don't 81.79.13.179 11:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should adandon the common/uncommon/rare thing altogether. Skinnyweed 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there are sources which indicate which subjects are more/less common, or is it an editor's opinion? If there are no sources this distinction should be removed. It should probably be removed anyway as the separation is likely to be arbitrary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this list of "common" and "rare" is necessary. Surely it is only important to note the distinction between the core subjects that candidates are obliged to sit and those that are optional. --Corinthian 00:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of at least common/uncommon/rare otherwise there'll be just wrangling over it. Skinnyweed ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be quite a dull list if we just listed all the subjects available in a single list. How should we split it? There seem to be some mandatory subjects; there are some specifically vocational subjects; and we could probably put all the languages into a single list. The current distinction between common/uncommon/rare is not a good one because it is too subjective. Any ideas? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to split them up as academic and non academic studies, or as someone said before as optional and compulsive subjects and those which can be both such as PSHE and Citizenship. However i dont think whether the list looks boring should mean that inaccuracies are acceptable.(Neostinker 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

O Level Grades

The table shown under "History" is incorrect. Only O Level grades A, B or C were considered to be a pass. D and E grades were a fail—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.240.166 (talk • contribs) .

I'm inclined to agree. I know everyone knows it's true, but is it technically true - were grades D and E officially called fails? I cannot find a reference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would they have two different grades of failing? Loserdog³⁰⁰⁰

In my day, London University Examining Board GCEs were graded 1-9, with grades 1-6 being passes and 7-9 being fails (everyone got a grade)! -- CS46 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: but not necessarily a certificate.

Looking into this a bit more, it seems that GCEs were definitely Pass/Fail before 1975 (with grades 1-9 as above only shown on result slips and not on certificates. (NB, London went its own way with grades A-E passes and F-H fails between 1968 and 1975!). After 1975, GCE results were graded A-E (or U if ungraded) but there were no passes or fails. There was however, a correlation between the old pass grades 1-6 and the new grades A-C, and hence everyone knew that C was a pass and D was a fail - but not officially. I think therefore that the reference to Pass in the GCE column should be deleted.

I also think there is some confusion over Pass with Distinction – this was a GCE A-level grading during the 50s and early 60s until the A-E pass grades were introduced, but I can find no reference to O-levels being so distinguished. -- CS46 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncommon Subjects

I think it is a bit inaccurate to say that Expressive arts and humanities are uncommon subjects! In schools where i live these subjects are very very popular and i think to randomly place humanities (which is Geography, History, Citizenship, Politics and RE etc) in uncommon subjects. (Neostinker 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

Does this refer to Humanities as a singhle subject (does this exist?) or the Humanities (Geog, History and RE) at my school? 195.93.21.73 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Humanities can be a single subject I think because something was missing from the exam this year (it was in the news). Also, how can Astronomy be a common subject? I can't even imagine many schools offering it. (*Lolita_Haze* 15:45, 02/08/06)

I was just going to make a similar comment about Astronomy being a common subject. It's not even common at A Level, never mind GCSE. So unless someone can provide a source which tells me the vast majority of schools offer astronomy GCSE (surely an indication of a common subject is that most, if not all schools offer it) I will, within the next day or so move astronomy down to at least uncommon subjects. Evil Eye 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I recall a statistic of around 500 people nationwide doing astronomy, which definitely puts in into "uncommon" IMO. Also, only edexcel offer it, so there can hardly be much demand. (BTW, is there an astronomy a-level?) 82.28.46.79 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How common is Engineering at GCSE level? I don't know any schools localy that offer it.

Like wise, no schools in Milton keynes offer the engineering at GCSE level (Neostinker 16:48, 27 August

2006 (UTC))

At my schol you have to do at least 1 humanty --Rebeccarulz123 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Science 'Triple Award'

Do people who study separate sciences have to study all three of biology, chemistry and physics? I'm sure I know some people who have just done two of these, but as far as the I can tell in the article it implies if one does separate sciences, that they do all three. My exams are from a few years back now, so was that once the case and have things changed now perhaps? Evil Eye 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some specialist schools offer maybe one or two of the sciences as separate GCSE. But it's almost always done as standard as the triple award. I'm assuming that doing less than three of the separate sciences is very uncommon. --Spaztic ming 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just that the people I have in mind went to a ordinary, standard 11-16 community comprehensive school. Sadly, not my school, they only joined my school in the sixth form, otherwise I might know more. I've lost touch with them too sadly, otherwise I'd ask them to find out. I'm nearly 100% sure one hadn't done biology to GCSE, only physics and chemistry and they were my lab partner in physics. We'll see what others might be able to add to this mystery :) Evil Eye 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject 'Science' (single award) gives a student a single GCSE grade having studied something of each of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. The subject 'Science (Double Award)' gave the student 2 GCSE grades (both the same) having studied a little more of each of the individual science subjects. There has never been a 'Science (Triple Award)', in other words a subject giving 3 identical GCSE grades having studied even more science. Students taking the 3 individual GCSEs, get 3 individual (and often differing) grades. I've therefore deleted the reference to a 'Triple Award'. And, yes, many do take only 2 of these 3 exams if they are particularly poor at the other subject -- CS46 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

i do single science yet it is all 3 sciences --Rebeccarulz123 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

CS46 - For double award the two grades are not both the same. I am currently in year 10(English Year 10) and doing this course. (Infact I have the 2nd module tomorrow =O) In year 10 "Science" is studyed which is made up of B1, C1, P1, (Module 1) B2, C2, P2, (Module 2) B3, C3, P3 (Module 3) then in year 11 "Additional Science" is studyed (B, C & P, 4, 5 & 6) At the end of year 10 each student can choose to do "Additional Science" or redo "Science" in year 11. You can do Higher (A, B, C & U) for one year and Foundation (C, D, E & U) for the other if you choose. (Note: you can get a C on both papers but it is easyer to get a C on Foundation than it is to get a C on Higher) Modules 1 & 2 are done in June, 3 & 4 the following December, and 5 & 6 the June after that. Each paper is 40 minutes. •Zhuge Liang• ^[Chat] 16:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, for Separate Sciences, you study Bio, Chem and Phy as separate subjects, and take separate papers for them. Depending on the exam board, you may have two papers per subject; i.e. Edexcel have two papers per Science - the first is the "core", which is the only paper taken if Double Award Science is being studied. The second is the "extension" - and this is what makes it into a separate Science and not just a double science. However, AQA have just one paper encompassing both the core and the extension - and it is this extension that again makes it a seperate Science and not a double science.

Hope that clears it all up. Gammondog 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Effectively compulsory subjects"???

I'm pretty confident that English Language, Mathematics and Science are compulsory subjects set by the government, which means you have to take them. Spaztic ming 18:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just a course in those subjects you have to do. For the vast amjority of people (probably over 95%, if not more than 99% - just figures picked out of the air) they will be GCSEs in those subjects, but not everyone will do GCSEs in them. At my placement school for teacher training this last year all but one pupil was going to be doing GCSE maths. The other was clearly not at the standard even to get a grade G and so, rather than have her definitely fail they put her on some other course so at least she had some sort of qualification in maths (I forget the name). They were also talking about how the next year they were probably going to have 5 or 6 people doing this other course instead. So the GCSEs aren't really compulsory, only 'effectively compulsory as I think everyone has to study those subjects and just about everyone does the GCSE qualifications. Evil Eye 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have Just received the results of my GCSE's along with all my friends, at our school and all local school Maths, Science and English are a compulsory subject, in some cases citizenship and RE are compulsory too. From what friends in other school have told me these subjects are compulsory by the government but different exam boards offer the courses in different ways. For example my school used AQA maths but another school near me used Edexcel maths which was a completely different course. (Neostinker 16:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

AQA and Edexel are just exam boards, organisations who set the exams. They will pretty much cover all the same things, certainly those things set down are required for 14-16 education with perhaps a few differences towards the higher level work. Which ever exam board your school chooses, you'll still all get the GCSE if you are entered for GCSEs in those subjects. Most people will be. Most schools will enter all their pupils for GCSEs in maths, English and some sort of Science, but not all schools will enter all people for the GCSEs in these subjects :-) Evil Eye 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

People who do Double Science do modules B1, B2, B3, B4 | C1, C2 , C3, C3 | P1, P2, P3, P4. Biology, Chemistry, physics. B1, C1 and P1 are taken in year 10 in January. B2, C2, P2 are taken at the end of year 10. B3, C3, P3 are done in year 11 in January again. B4, C4, P4 are taken at the end of year 11 along with the rest of GCSE exams. People who take 'Triple Science' (as it is called at my School) Can get 4 GCSEs - they do B1 - B6, C1 - C6 and P1 - P6 and they do the core and additional paper also. They than do first half of the courses at the end of year 10 and the rest at the end of year 11. They have 4 papers in year 10; the 'Core GCSE Science' (which is the first GCSE for double science), and another 3 papers in chemistry, biology, physics. At the end of year 11 they do 'Additional GCSE science' along with 3 papers in chemistry biology and physics.

Removed link to one guardian article

On grounds that the guardian article it was linked to was an account by one person on his opinions of the standards of GCSEs.

biased article link

Casn we please remove the link to the Brian J ford article, [1]. Far moer then 'subject to potential bias' as is warned, it is plain wrong and misleading. MHDIV Eŋlishnerd(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 22:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fudge?

Can anyone back up this term, I have never heard it myself. ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Uncommon" and "common" subjects...

Whence do these statistics come, and why are some subjects (like Photography) in both the common and uncommon sections? The Fish 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any data to back up these assumptions. I think that they should actually be removed. How relevant is it to the article to even list the subjects available. ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Latin, for a start is hardly an uncommon subject, especially in the private sector, whereas Punjabi is classed as common. I've never even heard of a Punjabi GCSE

Discussion of the equivalency to other educational systems

Could someone add a section of what the GCSE is in comparison to other educational systems in the world? For example, are the GCSEs equivalent to the SATs in the US? Are these tests taken at the end of compulsary education and the results determine a students possible path to higher education? What happens if a student fails the required GCSEs?

Lmblauvelt 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)LM Blauvelt

Yes, GCSEs do come at the end of compulsary education, and determin a candidates entry into higher education. But in England, compulsary education ends (for now) earlier than other nations (16 yrs.), it would be difficult to sum this up here, why not on the SAT page, or on a seperate article Comparison of international qualifications or such like, MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No it does'nt plenty of other nations end compulsary education at 16 and below. However most students leave school at 16 where as in other nations ,with the same compulsary age for education, the majority of students stay on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.137.69 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GCSEs do not determine entry to higher education (directly); they determine entry to further education (for those aged 16-18 and usually taken at a school sixth form or a college). Further education qualifications (A Levels) determine entry to higher education and are equivalent to the American SAT, as they are used for university entry, though the content is completely different. - Green Tentacle 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Most UK universities require some GCSE passes, but the focus is on A-Level. --Jonnymoblin 20:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Universities, normally, don't look at GCSEs. A-level results are more important, and especially now that Unis can look as the individual module marks GCSE grades are for the most part irrelevant

I disagree, I am told that to study medicine at university, u need at least 6A*s, as so many people get incredible marks at A level, they now look back at the GCSEs for performance across a wide range of subjects. You need similar numbers of A*s to get into law or architecture. Random Raider ↔ 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A mega rant, involving Latin, Others, History, Class Civ and Edexcel...

Firstly, "Others" sounds vague. Surely we can define some more groups. Secondly, do Science (Double Award), Biology, Chemistry and Physics need to be there, especially since they are referred to in the Core subjects box anyway?

Thirdly, I am moving Classical Civilisation from "People and Society Related" to "Humanities". Class Civ focuses on plays but also the lives of people historically, in the same way as History does.

Fourthly, I'm changing History : Modern International to History : Modern World. As far as I'm aware, none of the exam boards offer a course called Modern International, but I'm studying for the OCR Modern World History GCSE.

I'm also removing the "Only offered by Edexcel" tag beside Astronomy, otherwise we'd have to label lots of subjects with "Only offered by" tags (Unless there's a secret plan to do this and label all the courses with exam boards that offer them). I know for a fact that Latin and Classical Greek are only offered by OCR.

Which reminds me: should Latin be in the Languages box? I know it is a language, but unlike all the other languages, it involves no speaking element and requires in-depth analysis of literature at GCSE level. Maybe a "Classical Subjects" list would be worth looking into...

Rant over. Thanks for listening! --Jonnymoblin 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Applied and Vocational Courses, Languages, etc.

I deleted the "Applied... " section, as it mainly just referred to courses that weren't GCSEs (and as this is the page about GCSEs, well... ). The ones that were GCSEs had mostly been mentioned anyway, and I moved the ones that hadn't into "Others".

I made MFL and Classical Languages sub-sections, just for the Hell of it, but didn't know where to put "Biblical Hebrew"???

I also changed the layout of the list.

*Lolita_Haze* 19:40, 5 April 07

Pakistan studies?

Someone has added a subject called "Pakistan studies". I really doubt this exists. --81.145.242.101 11:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking at several exam boards websites; I can find no evidence that this subject exists. The only other reference I can find is here, though it is ambiguous. So, I can not be sure on if this subject exists or not. Camaron1 | Chris 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This subject has now been removed, I recommend that it stays that way unless more evidence is found. Camaron1 | Chris 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

double award science

I know many people who are currently doing double award science. I'm not certain, but I think that under the new syllabus it is still taught. Can you provide any evidence that it isn't taugth any longer? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 12:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not taught under the new syllabi. The old Science: Dual Award was a syllabus with twice as much content as the single GCSE; students studying this gained two identical grades. This syllabus is being withdrawn by all exam boards. The last students started the course in 2005 and the final exams are in 2007 (in a couple of weeks). Students studying for two Science GCSEs under the new syllabi study (single) GCSE Science and then another GCSE in either Additional Science (academic) or Applied Science (vocational); students receive separate grades for each GCSE. These courses started teaching in 2006.

All these pages state that the old syllabi are being withdrawn: [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. The WJEC website doesn't even list the old specifications any more [7].

I don't really have any objection to the old syllabi being listed in the article, though for two weeks it hardly seems worth it. I don't agree with the way that the information is presented at the moment, though, because it implies that the old syllabi are alternatives to the new ones, which is not the case. - Green Tentacle 13:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - Your user page says that you are studying for a GCSE called 'English Language'. There is no such GCSE. It is called simply 'English' (English Language only exists at A Level).

I like your attention to detail! I agree that it is not longer offeredto new applicants; I do think that there should be some reference to the syllabuses past, as it was an option for many a year.

MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 13:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is! See the 'History' section. - Green Tentacle 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

In the Criticism section it is stated 'considering students do not write their name but the "candidate number" on the paper this assertion [that marks were awarded for writing their name] is obviously false'. Is this saying that names are not written on GCSE examinations (which is certainly untrue) or that names are not written for the Citizenship GCSE (about which I am doubtful)? Either way, some source should be given and the writer should hardly be taking it upon himself to dispel the 'myth' single-handedly. — LaFoiblesse 2007-06-07 19:50 (GMT)

I personally think this section needs a lot of reviewing - it currently reads more like an essay trying to establish an argument with original research and weasel words rather than give encyclopedic information. I wrote my name and candidate/exam number onto all the GCSE exams I took, though in theory you do only need to do the latter so adding your name is a failsafe. Anyway, I have marked and tagged the areas that need reviewing. Camaron1 | Chris 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure students must sign their name, at any rate, though I'm not sure what this signing is meant to indicate. LaFoiblesse 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an additional space for signing your name in additional to the standard last and other names boxes, and yes I do believe signing is required - I suppose it would help verify the correct person did the exam if it ever needed to be checked. Here is an example of what I mean: http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3033H2-W-QP-JUN06.PDF. Camaron1 | Chris 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm unfamiliar with taking GCSEs; I was just pointing out that even if printing your name on the exam is unnecessary, signing it (probably) isn't. Thanks for the example anyway. LaFoiblesse 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional Mathematics

Is an exam/qualification offered by OCR, though it is technically not a GCSE.

Should it really be included here, or some sort of note added? Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a stand alone qualification, so I dont think it should be included here. But apparently additional maths is the hardest exam taken at gcse level, have you done it?Gammondog 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will, hopefully, take it next year. Won't do very well though!

I've added a note to the article, but if it should be removed then I think that's appropriate.Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's classified as a 'Free Standing Maths Qualification' rather than a GCSE and so should really be explicitly presented as such. Especially as, in many respects, it has more in common with the AS levels, what with the maximum grade being an A, and their results coming out on the same day. Jimeree 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out the NICCEA website ... Add. Maths. is a GCSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.169.219 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WJEC is Regulated by ACCAC

"There are now five examination boards offering GCSEs: AQA, OCR, Edexcel, the WJEC and the CCEA; while all boards are regulated by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) - a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) - the boards are self-sufficient organisations"

There is one error here on this list, even though the QCA does regulate qualifications, they only do so in England. The CCEA and WJEC are only regulated by the QCA if they are awarding grades to students in England, meanwhile in their own respective nations they control themselves. WJEC was under the regulating control of ACCAC which later merged with the Assembly Government (Who regulates WJEC now) whilst the CCEA is both the requlator and exam board of Northern Ireland. 82.11.221.164 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Suicide?

"and probably the highest cause of teenage suicide", is this a valid statistic? Rpb140990 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Rpb140990

Who

The use of Who in citations is pedantic and unneccessary, and is detrimental to the article. It is not neccessary for us to know who are the opponents and proponents of something, it is a virtual certainty that there are proponents and opponents of everything. These citations make the article very unreadable; I suggest they be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.90.188 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, nobody except the original author is really going to know "[who]" the quotes come from, and it just ruins the article. Whoever put them in please remove them and either find out the references for yourself, or nag the original author into doing so, in the DISCUSSION page, not the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewwilletts (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored those tags. Please review WP:AWW, they are standard tags and should be added to articles that contain weasel words. Words such as "some people say" are either going to have to be replaced with specific persons, groups, or organisations, or those sentences are going to have to be removed. Ultimately I think this section needs to be re-written from scratch, but time constraints have delayed me from doing so. You are welcome to contribute by adding sources and replacing weasel words if you wish; but please do not remove tags without actually resolving the issue. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the tag you might have been looking for was 'citation needed'. It is generally better practice and less irritating to read in an article. I have never seen 'who?!?!?!' being used as a tag before. --JackHosken (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed only relates to WP:V issues, attribution needed (the who tag has now been merged into) relates to WP:AWW, which is more specific on the issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of Student

The number of students taking the GCSE each year should be written somewhere in the article, possibly at the top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.78.202 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)