Is there any value to a 4th A2 level for Oxbridge / RG ?

[SecretPlansAndCleverTricks]

DD is taking 3 academic AS that will enable her to apply for her chosen subject, plus Theatre Studies that has nothing to do with her chosen Degree course, but that she really enjoys.

She is bright and hardworking enough to study four, and the school allow it. Would there be any benefit to her taking 4? or would she be better off dropping the Theatre and just continuing to enjoy Drama as an extra curricular?

Interesting letter gelatinous. My three DDs are all in the first category (Humanities/ Social Sciences) and though all three opted for only three A2's (with no plea of 'mitigating circumstancs'), all three ticked the twin boxes of having a genuine (and demonstrable) interest in their subject and having gone beyond the curriculum independently. None spent 20 plus hours a week being sporty or musical either. These myths amaze me.

gelatinous mine have been in the transitional phase: DD1 did her A2s over two years; DD2 was the guinea pig year but they did start to do the EP; DD3's year could choose between three and four plus the EP; DS1's year tend to take four plus the EP but it's ultimately judged on what best fits the individual student.

I'm going to have to disappoint you, yellow, in that while the circumstances i describe are different from yours, that does not make them myths. Any more than I would stoop to call yours myths, since what you describe is not merely the admissions requirements. The entry requirements are clearly set out, I think yellow's DCs have demonstrated they have gone beyond a mere 3 A2s.
Yes often five ASs include CT/GS, but not for, say, medics who are very talented elsewhere. [For avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying spotting a good medic has anything to do with other talents, just that so many seem to.] Five A2s are not rare outside the UK, even in the 1970s. Oxbridge colleges aim for the top few centiles in ability worldwide and it is rare that those students would be satisfied by only the bare academic requirements while at sixth form.
Yellow your DCs know that they have very short terms and the ability to produce quality and quantity, and to play hard, too, is essential. This is not about A2 count, but about the type of student that will fit and thrive.
Students chase whatever they are interested in for themselves. Trying to second guess admissions tutors is not going to get you up in the morning to follow that 4th A2 or 'conquer' that piece of work, but your interest will. So 4 non-CT/GS A2s or their equivalent may not be commonplace, but we are not talking commonplace.
I've also said there may be some who find themselves ready only after year 13. The common thread is sound self awareness, helped along by good school support and discussing any questions with current Oxbridge undergraduates, especially ones from your school, and ever helpful admissions tutors.

Incidentally it is naive or disingenuous to say double maths is less than two A2s when Cambridge would be and has been happy to take on 3 A2s including double maths if you get through their interviews and you've also managed a few BMOs respectably and do spectacularly at STEP - which is massively more difficult that Oxford's MAT. It will have been said many times that a talented mathematician can get through double maths in no time, but the fact is most people struggle with Maths let alone double maths. Mathematicians mature earlier, generally, so that ability is more obvious than in the humanities.
I also find it surprising that prospective medics may not be aware of the early clinical exposure London medical schools offer, which some prefer over Oxford's course. I don't think the students we know ruled it out since they also received offers from Oxford. That of all options is one where frankly whether you go to Oxbridge or any other on the Avicenna list, you'll still be called 'doctor' in the UK, How good a 'doctor' you become has little to do with whether you went to Oxbridge. So it boils down to which course you wish to buy, assuming you can be bothered to distinguish between what's on offer.

At the risk of boring myself, I will repeat that admissions tutors are generally very helpful. They also tend not to be held back by crude extensions of a few candidates' profiles, since they've got more experience of who will fit. In the final analysis, they just want the best who will be successful after their 3-6 years, not who got in at the start. A short phone call may be all OP needs.

I did Theatre Studies and applied to Cambridge and was accepted by a RG uni. It's not a soft option. In my case I did two 'traditional' A Levels and General Studies as well.

I think it's always the case that good students get offers from Imperial and UCL as well as Oxford or Cambridge but the fact that some choose the former doesn't make the latter second best. DS1 by contrast to your example has opted for Oxford over Imperial having looked very carefully at the course offered at each: that doesn't of itself make Oxford best. Each to their own.

Yes of course the life is intense. But doing an unneccesary number of A2's doesn't equip one to work hard and play hard, does it? It's a recipe for too much work at the wrong level perhaps.

As for self-awareness, that's all well and good for some but there are plenty of very clever young people who doubt their own ability and for whom talk of having to do 5ASs or play 20 hours a week of oboe etc. is going to scupper perfectly achievable aims. Three A2's and no outstanding musical or sporting prowess will do, provided a student is sufficiently interested and clever. Lots of the DDs friends did three and several of DSs friends are currently holding offers with three and no more, without being olympians either.

Agree about Theatre Studies not being a soft option. In fact Art isn't either. But you need innate talent for both.

In England in 2010, 18.5% of children taking A levels took 4 subjects (8.5% if you exclude GS) and 2.1% took 5+ A levels (0.5% excluding GS).

By school type the percentage of students at that school type taking 5+ subjects (inc. GS) was 1.3% at comprehensives; 7.3% at grammars; and 2.2% at independents.

Figures for those taking 4 subjects (inc GS) were:15.7% at comprehensives; 39.8% at grammars; and 19.5% at independents.

Not entirely sure what that shows to be honest, but it's certainly rare to do 5+ excluding GS in England.

genug STEP is certainly more difficult than the MAT, but it's not entirely fair to compare them since MAT is taken after ASs (early in the A2 year and assumes only C1 & C2 knowledge) and STEP is taken after A2 and assumes knowledge of the full A level syllabus (and for STEP 3 further maths too). They are also designed to test different things - MAT is looking for mathematical aptitude, whereas STEP is testing a candidates ability to apply A level knowledge in more challenging ways.

Cambridge are not entirely happy to take 3 A2s including maths and further maths if you read the document I linked to below. They also say that "The combination of Maths and Further Maths is not, for those strong in the subject, as heavy a burden as combinations of Maths with any other A level." and only really like a candidate taking f. maths to have done just 3 subjects where more wasn't an option at their school the way I read it - and then they look for extra in other ways (eg STEP).

Ah gel, I guess we agree that spectacular STEP II and III such as S,S will be fine for double maths +1 following a very convincing interview. Cambridge are definitely not as stupid as to rule out someone with only double maths +1 if they already have other indicators that they are of the one in a decade calibre, never mind the school options. BTW that could also do for the A2 counters as evidence that only 3 [or for some, 2.5A2s] will do... except we tend to know whether our DC is the one in a decade, don't we? Even without the self confidence bit.

The England figures could be read as since they are looking for the top few centiles worldwide, if tutors were as limited and crude as to only use A2 count, they need no longer look at the 3A2s. However they do a much better job than that in judging talent, and will flex to get the ones that fit best, which is why A2 count has to be contextualized. OP is better off talking to them about DD, than divining from other sources with a different context.

It may also be useful to remind ourselves that there is a universe of difference between the 1st and 3rd centile when it comes to ability and performance, let alone between different options and entry routes. But that's the job of the admissions tutor, isn't it?

maths + f. maths + physics is more of a problem for the natural scientists and engineers than mathematicians I would think. Clearly, if 0.5% people take 5+ exams it's not the same thing at all as saying they are the top 0.5% of candidates, which is why Cambridge look closely at UMS scores of I think your 3 most relevant subjects more closely as well as contextual things.

genug why are you so set on making it sound like a herculean feat to get an offer from Oxford or Cambridge? You have to be sharp, sure, as well as show signs that you can survive the pressure. But to suggest you have to be 'one in a decade' if you're taking the average number of A2s? That's overstating it, by a lot. What informs your view?

Yellow, again I have to disappoint you. It would seem that you are set in seeing what you want to.

The young people I know who are there at the moment come from a variety of routes, as you would expect. They are exceptional, and should be if admissions staff are doing their jobs correctly. Oxbridge do not look for the best 10% or the best 5%, they look for better. [Which doesn't mean the same don't go elsewhere, either. I find myself being tediously pedantic for the avoidance of doubt.] To categorise these young people into crude measures that show how average they are while knowing that is what is being sought, and being met by those there, seems to be the ultimate deception or false humility.

BTW it is not "always" in the case of medics "good students get offers from Imperial and UCL as well as Oxford or Cambridge" so I merely assumed you did not mean that literally. As for A2 counting, if you really think I'm saying all 2.5A2s need to be better than the best, perhaps you could give politics a whirl when next in search for something to do?

I did 5 A2s (albeit one was general studies) and got AABBB. I managed these with a Saturday job plus attending many musical ensembles on Sundays/after college.

I found it helped me greatly in learning time management skills and self motivation - very useful for work. In terms of getting into uni I only needed BBC so was fine, guess it depends on what your DC wants to do

In my children's school 4A2's, is now the norm for successful Oxbridge applicants. I'm a bit sad about this but there we are. I think you have said Yellow, that your highly selective state school is now requiring all students to do 4 A2 Levels, so the management there must feel there is some truth in this unofficial but possible inflation in entry requirements?

My daughter was told by a Cambridge academic that three and plenty of reading is fine, but by an Oxford tutor in the same area that four is preferred. Obviously there will be some contextualizing to be done.

Genug mentioned above that top public school applicants go in larger numbers to Oxford than to Cambridge and this is something I have noticed. I cannot now find the data on the Sutton Trust site as they seem to have have conflated the stats to 'Oxbridge', rather than separating the two, but when my daughter was applying recently, the stats were given separately. I was interested to notice that out of 90 successful applicants from Eton, approx 60 were off to Oxford and 30 to Cambridge. These proportions - roughly double - were replicated in the other most successful schools on the list.

I wonder why this is? A couple of OE parents I know suggested there is a feeling Oxford might be more sympathetic to them, but this cannot of course be verified, and in any case, is unlikely to be true of all tutors. Does Oxford have courses far more popular with students from these schools?

Correction to the above - I cannot remember properly but think this difference applies to the independent schools rather than Peter Symonds/Hills Road etc.

Cambridge accepted 2415 applicants from England in 2011 and the figures from Oxford would be roughly similar, so together that would be about 0.7% of the cohort of that year group (using 700000 = approx population of 18 year olds in cohort in England). I know some would be late or early applicants from other cohorts, but some of the 2011 cohort would also apply either early or late, so this should balance out.

So they are looking for the top 0.7% which is a lot better than the top 5%, but not hugely better (if at all) than the top 1% (when you consider that some of those will prefer to go elsewhere). That really isn't one per decade!

Trying to quantify further:

In 2010 (couldn't find 2011 figures, but they probably won't be hugely different) the numbers gaining the following grade combinations in their top 3 A levels excluding CT and GS in England were:
A A A* 4639 candidates
A A A 6541 candidates
A* A A 10052 candidates.

At Cambridge, when looking at their top 3 A level results only (excluding CT & GS):
59.8% of their acceptances achieved A A A* (equates to ~31% of english cohort achieving this grade, if a similar number go to Ox then the remaining third go elsewhere which sounds about right);
23% A A A (~12% of English cohort with this grade);
0.5% A A B;
14.3% A* A A (~3.4% of English cohort with this grade);
2.2 % 360 UCAS points (from 3 A levels only);
0.2% 340 UCAS points .

Obviously nothing contextual here, but it does show that without any mitigating circumstance your chances of acceptance decreases hugely each grade boundary you move down as you might expect (given the numbers achieving each result increase rapidly as you move down the list).

Couldn't find anything more on the number of applicants/acceptances who had taken more than 3 subjects though.

Intersting stats. I know you know this, gelatinous, but for the avoidance of doubt a lot of the Oxbridge entrants with the very high A level grades will have exceeded their offers. This year Oxford's standard offer was AAA for Maths, Science etc and AAA for Arts and Humanities, while Cambridge's offer was AAA and AAA. Of course a lot of people apply the term after they get their results. I expect most of them have at least one A*.

Not 100% sure about Oxford, but I think Cambridge likes to see something in their UCAS that demonstrates a very deep interest in their chosen subject. So not necessarily a 4th A level, but have you considered the YASS from the OU? This lets A level students study independently for undergraduate level modules - there is a wide range of subject to choose from, and they are well regarded by Cambridge, so assume useful for Oxford. Not sure if this is relevent, but Cambridge use the AS scores for the offer, and do not look at GCSEs, unlike Oxford.

Quite right genug I should have said it's always the case that students will often get offers from both Imp/ UCL as wel as Ox/ Cam. Haven't a clue what you mean about false humility though. Nor about giving politics a whirl. Nor quite a bit of your other stuff either. I asked one of my Oxford DC to have a look and she didn't have a clue either. So either she's not exceptional or you're points aren't that great.

slipshod our sixth form is now spread over three years so that makes a significant difference. Nevertheless if push came to shove I think the emphasis on depth and independent learning would have to trump breadth.

OK yellow, guess you of all people must be right about your DD!

Is it usual for A levels to take 3 years? Not in any of our schools, and one of them sends over 60 every year to Oxford, but their medics prefer the London courses. I don't think any of them would ever be accused of lack of depth and independent learning either. Their tutors at Oxford would have spotted that anyway, with so many going up every year.

Well yes I do and she's certainly not 'one in a decade'. On the other hand she is at the most applied to college (or perhaps the second - not sure) doing one of the most competitive courses. Which is why I find your comments faintly absurd, especially as I'd describe her sisters as broadly the same. I doubt all three were mistakes and somehow slipped through the net.

Our school happens to see no point keeping able students back to Y11 with GCSE's as they are. They don't think there's sufficient challenge to keep their interest beyond Y10. So they do GCSE's as linear exams, with all students sitting 11 at the end of Y10. They've simply taken the decision that the extra year is better spent on KS5 and other interests. It makes sense. My DCs 2,3,4,5 and 6 have all done it that way.

Incidentally why do allthe medics at your school prefer London? Sounds very herd-like to me.

And I'm quite sure the school you talk about (which you've all but named) doesn't send it's students out after Y13 lacking in depth. On the other hand it's a public school with all the priviledge that that entails, including small class sizes - a luxury state schools can't have. That's a crucial difference, one which shouldn't be underestimated when it comes to results. Far easier to teach; far easier to learn.

Again, yallow I must agree that you of all people would know if yours were "one in a decade". It's interesting, but unsurprising, that you should choose to read what I said as everyone there is a "one in a decade".

I guess you've demonstrated why there is demand for terminal exams at years 11 and 13. Why would it be easier to teach the same calibre of student, for any competent school? We have the luxury of experiencing different schools, their funding varies but the results are the same, despite a mere two years for "KS5". Also the luxury of a variety of universities, Cambridge as well as Oxford, and of course the London medic, so not as absurdly herd-like as a "one trick pony" university family.

Apologies to the OP, to whom none of this will be of any interest, but it seems almost obsessive to you. Like everyone else, I'm too busy working to spar with you, but it was good sport.

Gosh, you consider that sport? Odd . And why so personal genug? My DC have applied to those universities they happen to think would suit them best and I'm entirely relaxed about the outcome - is there a problem with that? You seem very angsty. Our school appears to acheive the same as yours at KS4, a year earlier, so what? Just different ways to skin a cat.

Have you name changed recently btw? You seem strikingly similar to a Mner who's son is a London medic....

Or achieve even.

Be aware that if you are taking 4 A2s, you may end up with a 4 grade offer from some unis eg Imperial. Happened to DS and quite a few others we know.