My son is in the process of picking his school options, at 13, a year earlier than children used to.  The term 'options' should probably be used as loosely as the 'choices' we have in what schools we send our children to.  I'd like to know the wisdom behind children now having to study all 3 sciences and a foreign language.  Who decides that these subjects are worthier than humanities and arts subjects?  Or that the compulsory RS is any more useful than cooking, yes I know that's not what it's called but I can't keep up with what is now home economics or domestic science or something else altogether.  I suspect that the governments at large daren't get rid of it because of the right wingers waiting to start hysterically screaming that it's something to do with the amount of foreigners in Britain.  Once my son has finished with the compulsory Maths, English, PE, RS, 3 Sciences, a foreign language and a Humanity, he has 2 'options' to 'choose' and I got the distinct impression that this was for a bit of fun.  Tired as I was of the talk of  'if you want to go to a 'good university', why not be honest and scream 'I'm talking about the red brick universities', I got to thinking, where is the national pride in our future artists, designers, architects, animators to name but a few who will get nowhere without Art as an option?  Where is the proof of the statement 'we are committed to all our students'?  In the 70s, after Maths, English, PE and RS, I was allowed 5 choices.  I took no languages or sciences because I was so terrible at them and chose a combination of humanities and arts subjects, which were my strengths and what I was interested in.  I passed them all.  If I had been forced to study languages and sciences, I would have completely lost interest and failed at everything.  I am struggling with the logic behind it all.