Further Maths as third A level

Most kids who get a 7 or 8 in a subject at GCSE have a decent shot at a B or even A at A Level

Depends on what you call a decent shot.
A 9 at GCSE has approximately a 92% chance of a B or above, or 81% chance of a A or above. And approximately 2% chance of a D or below.
An 8 at GCSE has approximately a 60% chance of a B or above in maths, or 36% (approx 1 in 3) chance of an A or above. And 17% of a D or below
A 7 at GCSE has approximately 25% chance of a B or above, and 10% of an A or above. And a approximately a 50% chance of a D or below.

My ds was one of the 7s that translated into an A at Alevel. But two things here. Firstly he did not do any work whatsoever for GCSE (lazy lump!), and he put a lot of work into the last three months his A-level Maths.
If a pupil has had to work hard to get that 7, I'd be fairly certain they're going to really struggle at A-levels.

Further to my point above. This year for AQA the grade boundaries were.

9 GCSE 91%
A star A Level maths 86%
A star further maths 80%

Obviously the a level material will be much more challenging at A Level. However I am not sure pupils with a good 8 should be excluding themselves if their conceptual understanding is strong and they just slipped up in a few places. Some people do have a slightly higher error rate than others.

Doesn't it depend why you didn't get a 9? With the percentage needed for a 9 getting to 90% and above for some exam boards you could be great at understanding maths concepts and problem solving and get all the tricky questions and algebra right but end up with an 8 because of a few silly errors and forgetting what a box plot was!

I would also say take a 4th if you are doing FM. Otherwise you are essentially just doing 2 subjects. Plus, FM is marmite - you get it or you don't. So it is either not that much more work over maths, or you struggle and are better off dropping it. I could only do 2/3 of it - the 'theoretical' maths (set theory etc) and the statistics. Luckily that was enough an A*, as I was able to cherry pick questions in the exams.

@PocketSand
It can be the hardest A-level, but honestly it depends on the person. I didn't find it hard; never really felt a step up from GCSE to A-level or from A-level to FM.
We had 8 lessons a week per A-level, but for Maths and FM together we had 12., and I was often twiddling my thumbs. We finished the Maths before Easter and FM before Christmas except for a small amount of further mechanics that they'd deliberately left to make sure we did have something to do in the sprint term.

But if I'd been doing languages, or arty, or anything essay based I would have found that far harder.

Yes, LSE see maths, fm and physics as a ‘narrow’ choice which isn’t regarded favourably for some subjects. DS is doing these 3 plus Welsh Bacc and wants to study maths a university so his choices are not a problem in the least for that.

LSE say that for some courses M+FM+ one other isn't great. To quote: "Programmes where a combination of A-level Maths, A-level Further Maths and one other subject may be considered less competitive"

The thing is when a course is competitive and they say "we recommend x for a competitive application" or "the majority of successful candidates had y" then you just know it's mandatory. Like at Oxford for PPE, you don't have to have maths but then it turns out that all but two successful applicants have it or something.

I'm not an admissions person or a STEM expert, but common sense would tell me that if they've got a choice of someone doing M+FM and physics and someone doing those with chemistry or history or economics or whatever as a fourth, surely the latter has some advantage? Look at the stats for engineering at a compettive university. And I suspect that if a school allows for the study of four subjects or is a high-achieving school, you'd be disadvantage in applying to some places.

@PocketSand- I think maybe it may more be that the students taking FM are likely to find the Maths easier than many of those taking just the latter, plus there’s a bit of overlap between physics and mechanics.

I haven't seen a single university say they don't consider M+FM+another subject to be sufficient.

DS2 went to a specialist STEM 6th form and was only allowed to do 3 A levels. He did maths, physics and further maths. FM was taught as a full subject from year 12. I don’t understand why colleges think that what is arguably the hardest A level can be taught in half the time or tacked on. Are all examination boards equal?

He is now studying for a masters in mechanical engineering. Unis cannot specify FM as it is not always offered but he was not required to have 3 other A levels and it has definitely helped at uni as the maths was familiar and not the massive step up it was to those without FM.

He would have got less benefit from a 4th A level and UCAS points don’t really matter if you meet or exceed the requirements for your chosen course at your chosen uni which you can do with ‘just’ maths, physics and further maths.

Thank you, he's hoping for Bath, has a conditional offer A* in Maths and FM C in biology. His insurance is Exeter - ABB.
His school did FM as well as Maths from Yr12, I seem to remember they finished one curriculum early, and just concentratd on the other for the last term of Yr12. It's a subject he's really able at, whereas Biology he enjoys but it doesn't come as easy. For him doing these 3 has worked well.

Good luck to your DC and I hope their choices all work out too

That should be A* for both Maths and FM

DS2 is doing Maths, FM and Biology. He was doing Physics but he dropped it within weeks. He hadn't wanted to do it, but didn't get a high enough GCSE in Chemistry to do at A Levels. His school agreed he could just do the 3.

He's sitting A Levels atm, predicted A A B.
He actually only got a 7 in GCSE maths (was in autistic burnout in Yr11) but has been smashing A Levels

I very much blame the government!

I share your hopes for next year, @noblegiraffe , but I very much worry that this year pupils at schools with a Cambridge tradition will have a huge advantage.

There is still the Cambridge STEP site itself, of course, which is very good.

Ironically I was able to access solutions to past STEP papers at MEI by starting at the Cambridge site. I haven’t compared them to the Cambridge solutions yet

Blame the government! Everyone was caught on the hop and it's only through charity that there's going to be any support at all.

I do hope it all gets sorted in time for my Y12 Further Maths students.

Thank you, @noblegiraffe .

(This was from 1 April)

I’ve just been to the MEI university admissions test website. STEP is mentioned only at the top. The focus is purely on the other admissions tests. In fact, they fail to mention that Warwick and Durham will be accepting STEP for 2026 in a slightly disingenuous statement.

There is a general skills workshop coming up but nothing differentiated on offer. Selecting Resources for Students turned up only a recommendation to purchase a Hachette revisions book. Every attempt to get written materials or video on a topic was a dead end.

Most unimpressed.

The free materials at the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme, are very good, and they run revisions at a low fee.

The Labour government just cut government funding for this programme.

The university entrance exam tuition programme will now be provided directly by MEI.

https://mei.org.uk/students/university-admission-tests/preparing-for-university-admissions-tests/

Apologies for being late to this very interesting thread, and thanks to @PerpetualOptimist for raising important questions around the best way to teach FM and its drop out rates. The competing claims are delicate, but as a former STEM admissions tutor I am always for having a good fallback. I have heard many, many stories from our applicants about how FM can go wrong in Y13.

The lower rate of FM participation amongst girls is a barrier to STEM education in the most elite programmes. When girls are genuinely more talented and interested in other things this is fine, but when they lose out on high paying careers that might suit them well because of external or internal biases it is not.

I was motivated to write because STEP and TMUA are mentioned upthread. They are becoming more widely used, especially for Maths admissions, as the A star grade becomes less of a discriminator. Several institutions offer a choice between them and the TMUA is significantly easier!

As PP said, STEP is run by Cambridge Maths who set the grade boundaries nationwide. They do this to control their intake, accepting only about 50% of offer holders.

This is of course their perfect right; my concern is that it is not widely known. Candidates from schools with a Cambridge tradition get substantial tuition whilst many others are like lambs to the slaughter.

TBF Cambridge warns them thar although STEP covers the material from their curriculum the problems are more challenging and the Cambridge STEP website provides good (free) resources. So do others. The free materials at the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme, are very good, and they run revisions at a low fee.

If your DC has Cambridge Maths ambitions, they should optimally start looking at STEP over the Christmas holidays in Y12 (when they may understand statements of a couple of the problems, at least). All DC but particularly girls need to know that success is a combination of talent and effort. The level at Cambridge Maths is very high, but there are few geniuses like the lad above.

The three A levels mentioned are perfect for maths and engineering. No one needs more. However if dc wants economics, a 4th is advisable. Dc will be banking on their skills are good enough snd not hedging their bets. Ultimately no one will care if they have 3 or 4. Unis don’t ask for 4 (mostly!). What they do like is high grades in the 3 subjects taken. There’s always an epq.

If he’s bright enough to be considering these then he should be able to/wanting to do 4. But my kids did 3 with AS further maths and that was a very good compromise. Is that an option? Might be better than the 3 you mentioned.

@PerpetualOptimist Or we could accept that even in a girls grammar, fewer girls take maths and FM. They have had every chance to evaluate their own performance and receive guidance and I don’t think pupils at great schools drop out much. They don’t start in the first place. Lots of university courses don’t require FM and success at work doesn’t necessarily depend on it either. I think the best mathematicians know they are! As do linguists and musicians. I looked at a large 6th form college in Hampshire as well as I know a FM teacher there. They prefer 8 or 9 at GCSE. I think most decent 6th forms would counsel against taking FM for less than excellent mathematicians, hence great results.

My life would have been so much better, and probably happier(!) if I'd been able to do further maths and not chemistry. As it was, I struggled with chemistry, spent all my time working on it to the detriment of maths and physics, and still got a mediocre grade in it

What we do not know is the FM drop out rate nationally or by institution; but I suspect it is very high for FM so the A level results are strongly influenced by survivorship and initial take-up bias. The DC being discussed in this thread may be very strong and very confident students and FM as a third subject may not be a risk for them.

However, policies that say FM should be taken as a third, or that preclude it being taken if you do not have 9 at GCSE Maths and/or FM GCSE, or must be taken sequentially with Maths A-level, or can only be taken with a narrow range of other STEM options, or institutions who adopt a brute force shake-out in the first term, will most likely put off those who are less self-confident about their mathematical ability and/or who have an interest in non-STEM as well as STEM subjects; this may well pose an unintended bias against girls vs boys taking FM and that, at a societal level, is not a good thing and, at the individual level, could result in a self-limiting of academic options.

My DCs found there was a mismatch between those who thought they were a dead cert for FM (more boys than girls) and those who lasted the course; so policies that discourage those who, in Y11, are less confident or who have more eclectic subject interests need to be avoided in my view.