Why the obsession with maths A level?

[demareradreams]

Inspired by another thread where posters were saying a teen should consider maths instead of psychology even though their planned next steps did not need maths A level.
Maths is great for those that like it and are good at it. Not everyone who is good at it enjoys it. There are uni courses that require maths or for which maths a level would be an advantage. But there are also many courses where it’s not needed. In law or physio, for example, like in the previous thread.
On every A level choices thread, there will be a number of posters saying the teen should do maths instead of (insert another subject). It’s often paired with statements about “soft” subjects what “universities don’t rate as highly”. However when you look at the entry requirements, it’s usually just high grades what are required and they don’t care if the student has done maths or geography or sociology or physics. Unless of course they want to so a maths or physics etc degree.
So yes maths a level is great for students who are very mathematically capable and of course it’s essential if it’s part of the university entry requirements. But for others, other A levels are absolutely fine.

Fine, if you can get a top grade in the Complex Numbers paper I took with no work, good for you. Look into global mathematics competitions - you would absolutely smash them, I reckon. The guy I know who excelled at those (got to national level) studied a lot. I got to regional level, again with a lot of study/practice. Since you don’t need to study to nail higher level maths, you can easily get to global level in these competitions. Best of luck (DM me if you want me to direct you to those competitions btw).

I don’t say that you (or anyone) can do maths A level without any work tho. But you state that maths A level is more work than sociology A level. I don’t accept that. For some people, yes for sure. Those who struggled with maths or didn’t enjoy it or want to put in the effort.

But for others, the maths A level would be a lot less work than media studies or sports science (is that even a thing? Do you mean PE A level?). I guess I am trying to say that people have different strengths and passions.

There is a difference between

1. 'no work'
2. Paying attention in lessons and doing set homework
3. having to do loads extra to understand, learn, and learn to apply.

I moot there will be a sizable minority who can do very well with (2), as when explained it will be 'trivial' to use a well worn maths phrase

I can only speak for my old school, but we had Maths and FM homework every week without fail, usually a couple of pieces for each, regular tests and then the assessments were 100% exam-based. By contrast, friends who were doing sport science/PE, for example, had far less regular homework (which they were pretty pleased about!) and a large part of the assessment was course work which they had a long time to complete, although they did it the week it was due. I did English Literature as my 4th and spent 5% of the time on it as I spent studying for my other A levels, if that, yet managed to get a C!

I disagree - DH is a Maths whizz - he didn't do a lot of work for the 3 maths A levels and physics he took. He said Chemistry and French were harder as he actually had to learn some facts whereas maths was just logic to him.

He is amazing at anything numerical but simply cannot see both sides of an argument - something that as a history grad I find obvious.

He may have had to do less work than someone who struggled more with maths, but he would not have been able to get top marks in Maths and FM with minimal work. They’re just not the kind of subjects where you can miss class willy nilly, skip the homeworks, not revise for the exam and walk away with an A*.

I was challenging PP who claimed she could have got top marks (100% no less) in maths, FM and physics with minimal work and no revision. She also claimed that she “knew” A level maths while she was in KS3 to the the extent that she helped her sister out with A level maths homework having never studied the concepts herself (she just “knew” them). This is fanciful bollocks.

I don’t think anyone is saying that everyone or even most people can get top marks in A level maths without doing any work.

It may be that there are people who are so good that they can do this, or something like it. Though if you ask me, someone who is so keen on maths is probably driven by their passion; chances are they have spent many hours before this point “working” on maths – as in, doing it for fun. In the same way an avid reader might find reading the texts for Eng lit a breeze bc they have been practising for years reading avidly.

Can I ask when you took your A levels @Crushed23? Was it a while ago – as they have changed. You seem to equate NEA (coursework) with an easy ride but I would suggest that it is simply a different way of working. It happens to be a way that suits my DD but exams suit me much better.

Obviously PE A level tests different skills from maths A level. But actually it would be a disaster for me – I was not sciencey (it’s pretty bio-heavy) and not sporty (obvs an important element is the practical sporting skills and analysis of them). So no, it would not be the easy ride that French was for me. I spent a lot more time on my third A level but got the best grade for French. Go figure. I was good at French – but maybe also I had had better teachers, had been studying it for longer (I started it in year 7 where my other A levels were subjects I started later), been to France more often...

He will tell you that he did his homework for maths etc and nothing else whereas Frenchy and Chemistry required revision.
At a Yr 8 parents evening for DD1 who was a total non matho he was totally bemused by the teacher saying that DD needed to revise for her maths exams as he had no idea at all what that would look like. He literally did not understand at any point how maths was not obvious. I also cannot understand how he cannot see that there are 2 sides to eg the issue of Gaze....

But paying attention in class and staying on top of homework IS work, and very different different from the minimal effort (because you just “know” it) that was being discussed earlier, or the kind of dossing many at my sixth form engaged in for other subjects, where classes were seemingly optional, homework even more so, and the only time you pull your finger out is to do the coursework the week it’s due and cram for the exam the night before.

The reason the likes of maths, FM, physics are well-regarded is because you just can’t wing them in the same way and therefore a good grade demonstrates desirable (to employers etc.) qualities like commitment, tenacity and conscientiousness. If you only went to half your maths classes, did none of the homework and tried to revise the night before for the exam, you would not get a good grade and would likely fail altogether

If you only went to half your maths classes, did none of the homework and tried to revise the night before for the exam, you would not get a good grade and would likely fail altogether

But that's true of pretty much any A level @Crushed23 certainly MFL, English lit, history, sciences, yes PE, yes media studies. I am not sure why you think someone doing no work for two years and revising the night before the exam would end up with an A in sociology. Or anything.

There are definitely subjects where you can get away with far less work than it takes to get a top grade in maths/FM/physics. Especially for a smart kid.

I find it odd that people are disputing the idea of ‘easier’ subjects when, IME, students pick these subjects for exactly that reason and will proudly tell you they did! There was no shame in choosing something easy as your 3rd or 4th A level if your university course only had two required/preferred subjects.

I didn't find Maths/Physics/Chemistry A Levels hard. You went to the lessons, there were a few key concepts and everything fell out from there. If you get these subjects then you can really whiz through the homework. Presumably for others it is time consuming as you have to plod through, looking back at notes etc. In contrast, I found things like languages and biology harder as there was so much content to memorise, so didn't continue them for A Level.

In contrast to maths/physics/chemistry, essay subjects are time consuming because, no matter how able, it takes quite a while to physically write an essay. The difference between an able student and less able student is the quality of the essay, not how long it took them to produce.

I don't deny that there are easier subjects at A level for most students. I've taught an easy, medium and hard A level, or at least what most would perceive them to be. But for a student who is naturally inclined to the subjects typically perceived as hard, they may not actually find them harder than those considered easy as they "just get them". I would have had to put far more effort into learning the content of something like sociology than I had to for maths/physics/chemistry.

Well done to all those who can do e.g. analytical series just by osmosis!

Haha, I know what you mean.

I sometimes think I live in a parallel universe to people on MN. I did a maths degree, a maths masters and almost started a PhD. I was one of the best at maths in my school and participated in maths competitions. Yet I don’t remember ever being able to get a top mark in an exam, at any stage in my academic career, without revising (ie through just turning up to class and completing the homework). Yet everyone’s son/daughter seems to have been able to do just that! Not a moment’s hard work because it ALL came so NATURALLY to them, nor a single practice paper, just the bare minimum and they all walked out with an A*…

^^This.

I did quite a few A-levels - two humanities, a language, and two science/maths. I naturally have more of an aptitude for humanities, as in I could get high grades in them with much less work; but I was also good at pure maths. In those subjects I could do 2., above. In applied maths, science and the language, however, I was less intuitively good at those and I had to do 3. — much more work.

I have always had to put in more work for sciences and languages than humanities; but I wouldn’t say I did NO work for any of them. I just needed to put more work in for those subjects where I didn’t have a natural or intuitive facility for the subject. In subjects where I just “got” it I could do much less. But I still had to complete the syllabus, write the essays, learn the material, revise before the exam, etc.

I know people who are exactly the other way around, and have a quick intuitive facility with maths/science subjects, and need to do less work on them than essay subjects. I also know people who don’t need to do much work in languages because they have a natural gift for them. My DH and DD are both like that — DD can pick up languages seemingly effortlessly. It’s not that she does no work, though - she just seems to have to do less than I would have to! DH is the same - taught himself Latin and Greek as a teenager and though he has never studied Italian or French, he has picked up a lot just apparently by osmosis, and can read them reasonably well despite having never studied them. (I find it a bit galling tbh!) I was decent at languages, but I didn’t have an especially natural gift for them - I would say I had to work a lot less than many people, because I have a good memory and was an all-rounder; but I still had to work a lot more than those who have a natural facility for language learning.

So, it isn’t that by saying maths comes more easily to some people, that that’s equivalent to saying those people did no work. However, it may well be that they have a natural facility for it that means they have to do a lot less work than you or I might in their place.

But the same is true for other kinds of subjects/disciplines. This is why it’s important to recognise that the general push towards maths/STEM is a bit misguided in assuming that intelligence is just some kind of raw plastic quality that you put into a school subject, add “hard work” and bingo, you get results out.

People ought to be able to develop their skills in a range of subjects, but also specialise in those that they find a natural fit/joy/talent/enthusiasm for them. Sometimes that will be STEM. Sometimes it won’t, and that’s okay.

I think a change like that would be more likely to greatly improve the quality of maths teaching from the earliest years of education.

I also think the change will eventually come. A curriculum featuring a broad range of 'core' subjects is the basis of the liberal arts curriculum model, which is gaining traction in some well regarded British universities.

But not everyone is capable of getting an 8 or 9 in maths GCSE, regardless of the quality of teaching. Doesn’t mean they won’t do very well in a degree that doesn’t require maths (such as the liberal arts you mention!)

But you're being quite sneery about other subjects. I don't think what you're saying about maths is any different for French or history or English literature. Unless a native speaker, you can't just 'do' French unless you learn the vocabulary and grammar rules. It would be illogical to claim otherwise. Plenty of people just can't infer meaning beyond the very basic in literature and struggle to format their thoughts into a coherent essay. Different subjects take different skills, which suit different people. As I said in a previous post, I have a maths A Level. I didn't find it harder than my other subjects - they're hard in different ways.

Yes this. @Crushed23 it’s not a good look to suggest or in fact say that a sociology A level is much easier to achieve than a maths A level. If I sat down and took media studies A level tomorrow (despite a career spent partly in the media) I am sure I would do no better than if I sat a maths A level.

And even a native speaker of French cannot actually just walk in and score highly on the A level (I have witnessed a number try and fail). There is literature and a film, exam technique and a huge range of topic work you need to be on top of. All A levels require work. Some people are better at some than others.

And everyone is not saying that their DC taking maths did not a moment’s hard work because it ALL came so NATURALLY to them, nor a single practice paper, just the bare minimum and they all walked out with an A…* My ds certainly didn't.

But even with the best teaching, not everyone will be capable of getting an 8/9 in maths GCSE. Just like not everyone will be capable of getting 8/9 in English, or French, or history or art. Different people have different strengths and capabilities. University should be an opportunity for everyone to study and achieve in subjects / areas where they can excel. Even if they’re awful at algebra.

I agree - it takes all sorts to build a society and it is pretty dangerous to extol one set of abilities at the expense of another. DH would be a useless diplomat but is great with algorithims, DD1 is a great musician and DD2 can argue the hind leg off a donkey. We need all these skill sets and people who are good with their hands, people who are empathetic and caring.

Exactly. I struggled to get a B for maths GCSE, while getting As and A*s in other subjects with no effort. I do word based logic puzzles for fun and have lots of qualifications in non-maths based subjects, many of which are traditionally seen as a hard subject.

That's a comment that harkens back to the idea that there are people who are naturals at maths or other subjects, an idea that is linked to the notion of elites that informs a lot of British assumptions.

The liberal arts model is based on the idea that everyone is capable of achieving an acceptable level.of attainment across the board, simply via good teaching and a solid work ethic. In countries where the liberal arts model is applied, students are left with far more choices for higher education than they are in those British regions where students can drop entire areas of academic thought.

But there’s a difference between having an acceptable level of attainment and getting 8/9 in GCSE Maths. Which not everyone is capable of, even with the best teaching in the world (I did get the equivalent of that back in the day, so no sour grapes!).

And actually at least one liberal arts degree in the UK has no maths or science requirements anyway so that doesn’t really support your theory about maths being essential for this oh-so-important degree…

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/liberal-arts-ba

112,000 people took maths A level last year. 41 % got A or A star. A much higher % than other subjects. So plenty don’t find it that difficult!