AIBU to be annoyed that the BBC and other news outlets are saying that boys outperformed girls at A level when it simply isn’t true?

[Putneydad7]

journalists have jumped on the statistic that boys had a slightly higher percentage performance in the A/A whilst barely or not mentioning that girls got way more A&A than boys. Only because 20% of boys (the less academic ones typically) dont do a levels then it skews the %ages.
60,000 more girls than boys do A levels. So while we are all patting ourselves on the back saying haven’t the boys done well, crisis over, this patently isn’t true. Maybe the journalists should go back and do some a level maths themselves.
Right rant over

Journalists should be required to hold a qualification in statistics- there are so many stupid headlines around based on misinterpretation numbers

As a boy mum who is doing A levels maybe let the boys have this win for once 😏 boys have done well, I'm sure girls have a well

Does it matter? Surely all that matters is how your own child did?

I don’t think any of those kids are watching or care about what is reported on BBC news

Given that for the last few years they've been reporting that girls have done better than boys, did you care then? Did you see mothers of boys complaining on Mumsnet?

Instead of the tiny difference between boys and girls, what we should be concerned about is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/aug/14/ministers-vow-to-tackle-entrenched-divides-in-a-level-results?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Here you go. This is what matters.

That is not the point. The point is information being given is inaccurate - information that schools and teachers are likely to act on.

Does it matter?

In the college my son is at there are not more girls than boys taking A levels. In my son's further maths class there are 4 girls and 25 boys. For what it's worth my son is out performing all the girls. There are also more boys in the other A levels he is taking.

If there's been inaccuracy, the difference is still minuscule. No school or teacher is going to act based on such a tiny difference.

Ffs 🙄

Executive director of regulation and compliance at the AQA exam board, Claire Thomson, says that while the percentage of girls achieving A* star and A grades is lower this year than their male counterparts, nearly 19,000 more females achieved at least an A due to more girls entering for A-levels in general. Girls made up 54% of all entries.

"It is important not to speculate too much about what has led to any differences between males and females as the figures are small, they do bounce around a bit over time and the causes will be multi-faceted and complex," she says.

It's not journalists who come up with the numbers.

Yes, if it's untrue of course it does. Truth is important . . .

But the boys have not had a win. if girls are out-performing boys and if research/resources need to be put into boys' education then it won't help boys to look at wrong statistics.

Isn’t it just a different metric?

Like when the Lionesses won, that was a newsworthy event. The fact that by a different standard they are pretty weak doesn’t invalidate that. Same here surely?

But it isn't inaccurate reporting is it. A (very slightly) higher proportion of boys sitting A Levels scored top grades than girls sitting A Levels. It's about proportion, not volume.

It also really doesn't matter. The regional differences, however are stark and are reflective of the disproportionate investment into education in weather areas.

Yes boys have had a win. The boys I know who did A levels this year got A and A next year my son is looking at getting A in all subjects. If that's not a win then what is,,? Or are you just bitter that boys do well academically?

The statistic they used is correct. The percentage of boys getting the top grades is slightly higher. I understand there is more nuance than that, but the BBC have explained that in the wider pieces I’ve seen on it. You can’t put all the info in a headline. It’s just supposed to be a summary of the story and a hook to get people to read it.

Of course, there are many other statistics they could have used but this is the one traditionally reported each year because it’s a bit quirky and people like to have a little debate over it. It’s not really hugely deep (given the tiny difference between the two) and it’s not worth getting upset about.

As for the person saying all journalists should have statistics qualification. lol. How many qualified statisticians do you think would then choose to go on and become journalists for a few quid above minimum wage and constant personal abuse and threats on social media?

This is MN. Your sons are the enemy and you're not allowed to be proud of them.

Or anyone else for that matter

Shockingly, the national news doesn't refer only to the boys you know and your son. Other posters are talking about statistics at the national level. Not your son.

Why should the girls let the boys kid themselves on to massage their eggs, fuck that. That's why we end up with people doing jobs that require stats that can't count.

Oh right is the whole entire post and news not about how laserwhos son might do this year? Who knew

Some other data:
814,335 A-levels taken by 313,190 students in 137 different subjects.
Number of 18yo in England is approx 680,000 (330k Female, 350k Male)

137 different subjects - I would love to see a list.
28.3% achieved A or A*. In the system in place until 1987 some of these would have got a C as only the top 10% got an A and the next 15% got a B.

Congratulations to all the A-level students, and kudos to the 35 students who achieved all A* in 5 or more subjects.