Bright child, good school, Year 11, got to choose A Levels. Tell me - 3 or 4?

disquis you guess wrong and in fact in a more lab based speciality than yours from previous posts. Although I have to admit I am in a position where I can focus on supervising PhD and postdoctoral student research with minimal teaching of undergraduates. Of course sciences need to have practicals but that can be done in the proper undergraduate course (although IMO valuable practical lab skills are only really learnt when doing research).
My proposal which of course is only a musing rather than proposal) would only be for a science theory catch-up to broaden access to undergraduate courses for students who had insufficient grades or the wrong combination of A levels. It would still be cheaper than a full attendance foundation course.

You have lost me now! I was merely adding what I know about LSE into the conversation about issues with widening access at LSE (for all subjects, btw, not just Economics)

I was assuming that your concern about some UK universities not interviewing and relying solely on the paper application was because French Universities operated a different approach.

NeedMoreSleep - I'm not at all sure why you want to bring French applicants into this discussion? What is the relevance?

Disquis I agree. There was no expectation the taking five would increase the chances of a good University offer, though it did reduce the risk of missing grades needed. Inter alia he would have dropped the fifth had there been any sign that this was affecting performance elsewhere.

I also agree that coming from certain schools, not offering four may cause problems, perhaps questions about your ability to handle the University work load.

A students skill set is not just grades. Being able to write well, organisation, maturity, perserverence, ability to work with others, should all help a student thrive. A broader education does not just come from a school syllabus.

Marie Curie was not so unusual in terms of language, given the time and place in which she was born and the parents she was born to. It's the English who've always tended to be inward looking.

This made it easy for her to collaborate with scientists from other countries.

But nowadays the language of science and engineering is English everywhere, so being multilingual does not give any advantage to a scientist. Of course it's still nice to be multilingual but A2 MFL does not indicate high proficiency, especially relative to European levels of MFL education.

With regards to whether typical Cambridge STEM candidates have 5 A levels: this depends on the type of school they come from. Admissions tutors would have different expectations for a student from somewhere like Westminster than for a student from a comprehensive with low numbers of students getting ABB+ at A level.

Provided a student has the relevant science subjects, I don't think is much advantage to having extra A2s in humanities/MFL for a STEM degree. Studying a humanity or MFL as well the required sciences is clearly valuable for many other reasons, though.

Catslife Valuable skills will be lost if most A level Scientists take 2 Sciences and Maths and have no opportunity to study other areas.

Hear, hear.

DN recently mentioned Marie Curie, a top scientist who was fluent in French, Polish, Russian, English and German. This made it easy for her to collaborate with scientists from other countries.

Maybe I should add that DS took 5 A levels. This allowed him FM, which was desirable but which would not be part of an offer, and history, which was always going to be more of a stuggle, and which might not have delivered the A grade he would need, but which helped build his written and analytical (evidence, argument etc) skills. With 3 STEM subjects in the mix, the workload was not overwhelming, and having a humanity may help convince an employer that he has a broader education.

He also then had the ability to start applying for STEM subjects if he found he was not enjoying economics.

Bobo

LSE does not interview. I assume because:

1. They have 13 applicants for each economics place
2. Up to 60% of economics students will be non EU (Probably something I should check but am too lazy, I think thats what I saw somewhere) and so it would be impracticle.
3. It is not nearly as rich as some Oxford colleges, and indeed has a lower proportion of public funding than any in the UK.

This means that the PS is, as Bobo suggests, very important. But not a problem for an applicant who is genuinely interested in their subject and has been happy to read round the subject or similar.

A decision by LSE to focus scare resources into teaching, rather than selection, seems a reasonable one. Yes on the margin, different decisions might be made but given how competitive the course is, they will end up with strong candidates. Presumably they eexpect Cambridge to syphon off those that interview best.

The UK is lucky to have four very strong, world ranked, economics courses. Cambridge, Warwick, UCL and LSE. (A bit like COWI for maths.) Each has advantages, each selects on a slightly different basis. The advice DS was given was to to apply to all four and be happy to receive an offer from one. (Actually the same advice DD is being given for medicine. Once you get over a certain level of competition it has to be a bit of a lottery for all bar exceptional candidates.) DS says he is now glad he is at LSE (the only offer he got) because the course allows him to take more, and more advanced, maths options than available at Cambridge degree. However some of his peers would have been happier at Warwick.

The problem for French students seems to be:

1. They don't seem to understand the application process and, inevitably, the system is not designed around their qualifications.

1. If Bobo is correct, French students tend to rank LSE and Cambridge much higher than Warwick and presumably UCL. They are then relatively more disappointed than a British student if their offer for one of the top four Universities is not the one they wanted.

In terms of access, I assume all London Universities are struggling. London is just so expensive. Relying on anecdote what I suspect the LSE is good at is attracting British ethnic minorities. First from inside the M25 including students who would expect to live at home, and then those from elsewhere who are attracted by the very obvious diversity of the student body.

I agree with you Catslife.My dd1 has been encouraged to do solely 3 A levels with the intention of doing Medicine/Veterinary Studies.She did 4 language GCSE's with A* in them all.It now seems a shame that now she's solely restricted to Sciences and Maths because her School are telling everyone to do 3 ( Gdst School).
Having spoken to Medical admissions at several universities the 2017 requirements have mostly not been specified yet.But they have confirmed that they have many worried parents phoning up to see how many A levels are required.Students are required to trust the Schools advice without clear guidelines - especially the current year 12's.

This is all very well but I don't think the ONLY purpose of A level study is about university entrance surely we need to think beyond that to make sure our dcs (or pupils) are equipped with both the skills and the academic knowledge needed for the workplace as well as more study.
As a former Science teacher, I have valued the broader qualifications the AS level has brought which have enabled many A level scientists to take a language or an essay subject e.g. History or English Lit further than GCSE. In the real world we need Scientists (and Engineers) who can communicate well e.g. by speaking other languages or being able to write clear reports. Valuable skills will be lost if most A level Scientists take 2 Sciences and Maths and have no opportunity to study other areas.

LSE attaches unusually high importance to the PS. If candidates don't adhere rigorously to the LSE PS model they get rejected at first sift. Significant extra reading around the subject being applied for is an absolute necessity. I think that rigid rules such as these, without an interview, (a) are off-putting to applicants who have little guidance (b) encourage use of professional PS and reference writers. With no interview to double check the veracity of the applicant's PR brochure, the less privileged are bound to be disadvantaged.

University places are going to slump back to 20-25% of the cohort.

Why would you write this?

The government has a clear target to increase the number of undergraduates. University departments will close if the number of undergraduates is not increased (as fees are decreasing in real terms). So in reality universities will drop requirements rather than turn away students.

disquis I would suggest online part time foundation courses with materials online, lectures by videos and twice a week tutorials administered and examined by local HE establishment to student. The rest of the time they could work to earn some money. It would cost but less than a full time course and living expenses would n't be required. A lot of courses are being stretched out to 4 years now so some of these should be reduced unless it's a year out in industry or abroad.

I'm guessing you don't work in STEM?

Students doing a foundation course for maths, science and engineering need to do practical work. This is expensive and time consuming. And, leaving aside the fact that online education is ineffective in STEM subjects, the lectures are always the cheapest part of a course: the cost of two weekly tutorials and marking homework (which is completely necessary) is the main cost, so your proposal couldn't be made to work for much less than 6k per year. Moreover, it would be very hard for students to work part time and still cover the amount of material required.

Next "a lot of courses are being stretch out to 4 years now". This is a misrepresentation. Declining school standards over the last two decades mean that what used to be covered in a three year STEM degree is no longer covered: the fourth year is needed to cover what used to be done in a third year. For our STEM students to be remotely competitive with those from elsewhere in the world they absolutely need this fourth year. They absolutely need it for their professional qualifications also (chartered status).

Thanks Bobo, I might take a look.

Ok then SGADM, how about your own views then?! You said in terms with some confidence that the new measures would impact negatively on widening access, so can you elaborate? I'm interested in what exactly it is that makes you think that. Never mind the LSE geezer, what makes you say that? You could be right, obviously (I hope you're not) but I'm not too sure why they would.

GoMilou has said that she now sees some wisdom in reducing numbers of subjects given the more difficult specs (which disquisitiones confirmed for her own subject upthread, quite forcefully) and in point of fact the school in the deprived area of London that GoMilou refers to is offering an AS plus three other subjects tot A2 plus FM to those who want it - so actually a fairly generous offering, certainly as good as many independents. And Boys3's point about a potential confidence boost is no more relevant to the disadvantaged than the advantaged (it's relevant generally of course but as another poster said, it can also go the other way).

Anyhow, over to you! None of this reduces the impact on the less able - as titchy says, it's the middling/ less able who need to watch out, across all social groups - but I can't immediately see the specific issue for the able. Maybe just crib off the LSE e-mail without attributing if you get stuck! . As I say, I hope both you and the geezer are wrong.

No one is using a speech writer.

I was simply going to use an email which I thought pretty thoughtful about the issues. I mentioned it's provenance not for kudos but because a. It would be wrong to pass it off as my own and b. For context ( LSE is highly selective and struggles with participation - more than Oxbridge I'd say).

But said mate hasn't got back to me so I can't c&p.

Molio - LSE have got some sort of Heath Robinson contraption of a UCAS form sorting & selection process. There are endless threads about it on TSR if you want to wade through illustrations of the anecdotal annual frustrations it throws up while keeping applicants hanging on. Insider info is that there have been some very skewed judgements where excellent applicants are rejected in favour of very middling ones due to the overly complex assessment process.

oops getting my DS's mixed up :) AS results massive confidence boost for DS1 not DS2. I think DS1's experience might confirm your final point incase in that whilst his GCSEs were undoubtedly good amidst all the As the sprinkling of *s was not that liberal. His AS results then demonstrated an upward trajectory. Would he have achieved the same set of offers had he been doing linear A2s and been wholly predicted grades dependent? There is of course no way of knowing.

boys3 I agree about narrowing choices down too early. Similarly to many one of my DC's less favourite subjects of their A level choices (as thought rather tedious from GCSE) has become favourite after one term of sixth form. Funding seems to be driving the change to 3 at the outset rather than absolutely required by the new exam system. It would seem that just as now 3 for year 13 will be preferable.
Your comment about internal vs public exams might also act the other way for some one who has had a slow start and catching up to do from GCSEs.

specific to the OPs question though. DS2 now in Y11, plans to attend same sixth form as DS1. Their standard offer will be 3 x A2 subjects, not 4 - these could of course include subjects that will not yet be linear, so still AS at the end of Y12, when he starts. They also push the EPQ. DS1 did one, enjoyed doing it and did not find it either onerous or distracting.

My only concerns : DS1 could start with 4, and at the outset of Y12 was fairly sure as to which 3 he would continue in Y13. That changed over the course of the year. DS2 will have no such luxury. Secondly is that the AS results were a massive confidence boost and formally (in the context of being national exams) confirmed that DS2 could apply to any Uni with a high degree of confidence that an offer would be forthcoming. Whether internal y12 exams that DS2 will take will provide the same level of credibility and candidate self-belief I'm not wholly sure.

Talkin but they are of relevance to the university staff who teach them as a pilot of what to expect with the new style A levels and the advantages these may bring for university students.
There was no evidence of benefit from the old system (unless you have some rather than just wanting to posture) and direct comparison with the new system has to wait for at least 5 years. You as others bemoaned the unfairness of the old system. The new system will cost less for exam administration at the least and should relieve students from the stress of this present exam biased system. The new A levels are separate from the problems of funding in education.

GoMilou according to the Cambridge website just under 60% of successful applicants in the 2014 cycle got at least A A A. The stats only report the three best scores, nb that Gen Studies & Critical Thinking are excluded, so yes these candidates may have taken more than 3 subjects at A2, however the average tariff points on the CUG tables suggest those getting 5As are not that common. See table 3.1 in the link below for all the figs

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

fwiw DS1 successfully got a place at Cambridge from 3 subjects at A2, as did all the other successful applicants from his school.

What's the problem with admissions at LSE Bobo? (I wouldn't have a clue, but curious given what you say).

I'm not sure why SGADM needs to call in a speechwriter from there in any event. Presumably it will be a particularly mellifluous diatribe against the new reforms in particular and the government in general. Hopefully it will be very impressive indeed :)

I do know anecdotally that for the top end of students the preU students are well prepared for independent less formulaic learning.
the multiple of anecdote is not evidence

so few schools do the Pre U (and they do not publish their grades) that they are an utter irrelevance to the 6000 secondary schools who provide the staff to the employers who keep the country running