Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Onewestguncopse wrote

The reason is because CH does IGCSE. This skews our results. Mad but then that is Ed Balls for you IMHO

Hi Ian

Are you able to answer my earlier question? I still don't follow how, if CH does IGCSE Maths, the percentage of pupils gaining 5 good grades including Maths and English is shown on the recent league tables as 11%. Does this mean that some pupils at CH study (and pass!) the 'easier' GCSE Maths curriculum?

Maybe some do it in UF like we used to do O-Levels in UF and then AO in GE if you were in sets 1 & 2

The 11% must refer to UF examinees, although I would have thought it would be higher as most UF examinees get an A. Not sure what is going on here. All I will say is that last year our GCSE results were the best ever and put us 12th in the UK league table for co-educational schools.

Not bad - but equally not that important too. I remain a believer in the 'all rounder' - you are not classified by your GCSE results but by your character. I have always prefered the hard working, decent B student who gives back in some way, to the arrogant A* student who takes but is not prepared to give!

Eton, London Collegiate and St Paul's all showed as 0% A* -C in the Telegraph which did look funny . There was note explaining that this was due to the IGCSE.

onewestguncopse wrote: I remain a believer in the 'all rounder' - you are not classified by your GCSE results but by your character. I have always prefered the hard working, decent B student who gives back in some way, to the arrogant A* student who takes but is not prepared to give!

As an (ex)employer I agree with you 100%. For the benefit of any pupils reading this we had some graduates who came in thinking they knew it all and created chaos; we even had to sack some. On the other hand I never had any problems in giving responsibility to those who had worked their way up through the ranks.
Never assume that your qualifications mean that you know it all - they definitely don't.

I heartily agree too!

It works in both ways I reckon - you can have excellent results and be a hopeless employee and you can have poorish results but be a great all-rounder and go on to achieve much more.

I don't mean to be negative, but young people are led to believe a degree certificate means everything and guarantees eternal wealth. I have a 1st class honours degree but I know for a fact that it doesn't make me a better employee than anyone else; it's just as difficult for me to find a job as someone who left at 16; in fact harder to some degree (no pun intended!) because employers at the top jobs fob you off with the normal "you're too inexperienced", where employers in so-called menial jobs will question what someone with good qualifications is doing applying for a job the employer feels is "below" them.

That's why I think CH does a great job in encouraging high academic achievement but at the same time moulding people into good all-rounders in lots of other aspects.