Schools and parents advising on A Levels

[duhgldiuhfdsli]

Yesterday was dispiriting, and tomorrow I suspect is going to be the same.

I spent a few hours staffing my department's stand at the open day "subject fair", which is meant to act as a central point to talk to staff from all departments.

Were I the weeping in public sort, I would weep in public at the number of people I saw who were keen to do our course, but hadn't got the right A Level choices. Given we are substantially less prescriptive for this subject than other universities of similar standing, they won't have the right A Levels for any similar course either. I'm in STEM, but my brothers and sisters in the humanities report precisely similar problems: keen, motivated students who may have well have saved their parents the petrol.

Where do they get their advice from? How do people get into a position of attending a Russell Group open day, travelling some distance, accompanied by their enthusiastic parents, but have A Level choices for which there are essentially no Russell Group courses, and certainly not in the subjects they are interested in? This is "I didn't think you needed maths in order to study engineering, so I gave up" and "surely biology is more important than chemistry for doctors?" level stuff.

What on earth are their schools, and in some cases their parents, thinking?

I assume the college was focussed either on their league table position or had not been able to recruit good maths and MFL teachers.

Or had bought into the myth of UCAS points.

There's a scandalous example of that near me. An Academy is moving to the IB. In their prospectus they have looked up the standard A Level offer for Oxford Medicine (AAA, they claim, which isn't true, but it's near enough and correcting it wouldn't fix the basic mistake), converted that to UCAS points (360), looked up the claimed IB equivalent (about 28 or 29) and said "aha! you can go to Oxford with 29". You can't: Oxford Medicine needs 38-40 on the IB. And there's a bunch of other courses on a spectrum of selectivity where they've done the same thing, and in each case the course's specified IB requirement is massively higher than the straight UCAS point conversion.

The same goes for BTEC. 3xDstar is 420 UCAS points, which on paper is 3xAstar at A2 in UCAS points. Getting onto an A*AA course with BTECs is going to be a massive challenge; you'll probably be formally interviewed and given other tests before even being given an offer, but more probably you'll be rejected out of hand ("Given the academic focus of all Oxford courses, candidates are unlikely to be able to make a competitive application if they have not studied academic courses to A-Level standard within the last two years, whatever other qualifications they may already have completed.")

It's absolutely pernicious. There are almost no universities that will accept you by simply adding all the UCAS points you can scrape together from music exams, FSMQ, accountancy tests, horsemanship, EYFS, etc, etc. Some might say "A levels in this range of subjects totalling this many points" (which is the equivalent of the old "will take points" from the 1980s), but everywhere will set their own distinct requirements for BTEC and A2, say, which will have a varying rate of exchange.

And let's not even start on schools which believe that 4Bs at A Level (400 UCAS points) trumps 3As (360 points). Er no. Not ever.

I know of a wannabe engineer who decided not to take physics for his A level

I suspect that if you had maths and further maths there are still some options open to you, though, so it may not be absolutely terminal. You could, for example, do Mechanical Engineering at Birmingham.

MissScatterbrain, DS' school were discouraging boys with A in maths if they felt that the step up to AS was going to be a challenge. The material is very different. If you are a good allrounder, work hard and are well taught A maths GCSE is not impossible. The point I was making was that though maths A level is a good one for most things, its not worth doing at A level if you are going to struggle.

Also it is possible to find course in many subjects which all access for those without the obvious A levels. However its much better to do the obvious subjects. Not least it is a chance to discover whether you are sufficiently interested or have the right aptitude. Finding our during A level that maths or physics is not your thing, is better than a term into an engineering degree. Plus, obviously, if you do the "right" subjects you have more choice and a better chance of competing for the most sought after courses. (Which is sort of what this thread is about.)

duhgldiuhfdsli - I wonder at what stage we will start seeing mis-selling type claims from students mired in debt and with few prospects, following bad advice from schools and Universities. Your example above would seem an obvious case. The FCA recently ruled that Credit Suisse provided inaccurate marketing information on some stock market linked bond. They have been fined and customers compensated. The cost to students of similar misinformation by schools is so much higher.

I have been looking carefully about IB equivalents and how IB achaivements compare with A-levels.

A standard offer of AAA translates into 666 at Higher Level IB. So actually there are two requirements - a 38 overall and 666 at HL. This means that, on average, an IB student that meets an offer will have more UCAS points that someone meeting the offer with A levls.

The minimum requirement at IB for Oxford is 39 (38 for music). I haven't worked out the UCAS equivalent of, say, HL 766 and SL 666 plus two core points, but it is has to be a lot higher than the UCAS points from A*AA.

You cannot go to Oxford with 29. A student probably has to work harder to meet the Oxford minmum if doing IB compared with if doing Alevels.

Need - I agree that choosing the right subjects will make it much easier to compete for sought after courses.

I am aware that there is a huge jump from GCSE maths to AS or A level maths and that even A* students can and do struggle. This is why my DC's 6th form will not consider bending the rules on this policy.

Duhgldiuhfdsli, DS1 got 4 offers from RG unis (and an interview, then a kind rejection from Cambridge), for chemical engineering without physics A level.

Further up, there was reference to Structural Engineering (Civils) without a physics A level - never! No chance.

I think MFL students do not need Maths. What DD found was that many of her contemporaries at university did not have good essay writing skills!! English or History are the best A levels to go with MFL A levels because MFL A levels are light on essay writing. Maths is a luxury for the MFL student. Good for lots of subjects, but not MFL.

I think MFL students do not need Maths.

MFL graduates applying for jobs might, of course.

I think the problem is with the system. Kids have to make decisions about their direction in life when they are too young. Not everyone knows what they want to do when they are 15. Some children who are very good at many things might not take 3 sciences even at GCSE because the courses are pretty lame and they are put off.

The British system works well for people who know what they want to do, but there is nothing wrong with having many interests and wanting to go in several directions when you are still so young.

The British system works well for people who know what they want to do, but there is nothing wrong with having many interests and wanting to go in several directions

In isolation, that's true.

However, fixing it would require a complete reconstruction of the entire post-18 education system, because we would need to switch to a US-style "general education" degree with majors chosen later, followed usually by a two year masters. UK degrees leave people with a good first qualification at 21, a masters (leaving aside from crazy finance issues) at 22 and a PhD by 25. The US system isn't quite as "oh, you can defer decisions" as people make out, because of AP, and with four year first degrees, two year masters and six (!) year PhDs, they pay a hell of a price, both in time and money, for that flexibility.

Similarly, there are good arguments to be made that US medical training (which is entirely post-grad) and law (for practical purposes ditto) are good schemes. But it would radically change the whole process of getting enough doctors into the NHS, and I don't see anyone with the stomach for doing that.

Now the Bologna process may in time see the end of UK-style one year masters, although no-one has as yet suggested that four year first degrees leading straight to MSci/MEng qualifications are in the firing line. And medicine is becoming the tail that wags the dog, as it increasingly dominates discussions about university entrance. But the English system of people arriving at university aged 18 ready to do undergraduate work in a particular field, as against the US/Scottish system of them arriving less qualified to spend a year doing lower standard work, has served us well. We could change it, because other systems work well as well. But people who do know what they want to do might be a bit pissed off at having to wait effectively two more years before getting deep into their subject.

Sorry I have just dealt with this issue and it is a sore point with me because my son is now 3000 mies away for university (got into Yale and Oxford, and chose the more expensive, further away option). I am aware that my comment isn't very practical. but I didn't like it when his school was telling him not to take art and English because he was good at maths. He was put off maths and science because the GCSE courses were so dull for him. There don't seem to be enough options here if you don't fit into a particular box.

Sorry, I know that this isn't what you want to discuss on this thread, but I think it is relevant. (Or maybe I just want to brag about my clever PFB, and mourn his departure.)

Also, I don't think that people arrive at university less qualified in the US, from what my son says. I know that there is an extra year of official school here, but people start a bit later in the US, and education in general seems even more pressured and intense than it is here (unfortunately).

I guess I wish he would have fit the system here; life would be much simpler and he would probably be very happy.

US PhDs are more often five years than six and (at least in sciences) are accessed by an undergraduate degree, so 9 years of university education in total, of which the last five years is funded.

The UK has short PhDs and we suffer because of it: our PhDs are not competitive in the international market, relative to people who have more years of study. UK 1 year masters are also not in general comparable with 2 year masters and are typically made only 1 year because of financial issues.

Those whose study science in the UK typically drop other subjects at 16. This means that their writing and communication skills are appalling. (This is a huge problem in my field, and means that UK graduates are often no hired.) Conversely those who don't do science A levels often have very low understanding of science of technology.

No system is ideal but I do think somehow we need to introduce broader study into sixth forms.

Also, I don't think that people arrive at university less qualified in the US, from what my son says.

Yale may not necessarily be the best dataset to use, of course, given it's selective to the point that it makes Oxford look open door.

This means that their writing and communication skills are appalling.

Indeed, working with American engineers from top universities was an eye-opener in terms of writing skills. It wouldn't be hard for UK universities to introduce the equivalent of Freshman Comp.

It's not all bad news though, and some schools are trying, though I think it's unfair to put all the onus on the school, and students need to be encouraged to start looking at courses and post-school options from early on.
At DDs comp each student has a scheduled 1-2-1 with either their form tutor, HOY, or a senior teacher at least once a year. They discuss current grades, and encourage students to start thinking ahead to the type of career or university course they want to do, and this in Year 8. So DD has been directed to look at a few RG/good unis that are strong in English to understand which subjects she will need at A level.

Indeed, working with American engineers from top universities was an eye-opener in terms of writing skills. It wouldn't be hard for UK universities to introduce the equivalent of Freshman Comp.

It is not easy to introduce such modules because UK science and engineering students don't expect to have to do them and find them hard. I know of institutions who have discontinued such modules because they were unpopular with students (and this potentially affected student survey scores and hence league tables).

duh's advice on the first page of the thread on A level option is good. Mine will not do science A levels so probably will do English and History (one is keen on being a lawyer in due course). I thinking maths A level was probably too hard for them, but they are both quite good at maths, both got a music scholarship too. May be English, History, Geography and Music (with the music just AS if that is still how it's going to be done when they do it - I think they are the first year in the new system). Possibly economics instead of one of those 4 and possibly maths instead of one of those 4.

" How do people get into a position of attending a Russell Group open day, travelling some distance, accompanied by their enthusiastic parents, but have A Level choices for which there are essentially no Russell Group courses, and certainly not in the subjects they are interested in?"

You want the blunt answer? They go to a school which recognises that they will get 3 Cs or so for the sort of A levels they need for RG and the subject they think they want but 3 As or so for soft options.

At which point they won't get into the RG uni anyway - but the school won't half look better if it's the 3 As on their results.

Often they're being totally unrealistic in the first place - if you like neither biology or chemistry, how likely is it that you're going to enjoy pharmacology anyway?

As far as the private schools go, at least the academic ones, it's not just that the kids are better advised to avoid dead end subjects, the schools simply do not teach them so it's not a mistake they can make. DD would have loved to do Alevel PE. The school does not offer it, and not having it shut precisely zero doors for her. Having taken it rather than one of her eventual A levels would have shut many doors. But it would have been very, very difficult for us to talk her out of taking it had it been offered as an option.

The killer is the public insistence by so many people that all A levels are equivalent.

Does this not take us full circle. Ie if there is the time and aptitude, taking an essay subject or language alongside STEM, or maths alongside MFL or humanities shows a degree of roundedness which employers may welcome.

As for Universities offering courses for scientists which demand essay and argument, I think students would only take note if they felt a broader education helped with getting a job.

FWIW, and noting ClaraSch's post, I am very pleased my dyslexic daughter's chances of getting into University wont depend on post-16 English. She would have struggled within the American system. That said I am not sure that it is helpful for students not to have to practice basic skills, whether literacy or numeracy in their last 5 years of education.

"I think MFL students do not need Maths."

An attitude I'm personally delighted to see, since it means that any scientific/technical + language jobs go to people like me (scientist with A level French) rather than MFLists with some science/mathematical background.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Few jobs beyond teaching involve just MFLs - they involve using the MFL to talk/write about something specific which you also need to have some specialist knowledge in. I've worked on multiple contracts where they'd rather have had an MFL graduate with some science than a science graduate with some MFL - but none applied.

Regarding MFL - we're such a multi-national country now that surely employers have their pick of native speakers, rather than having to find someone with a rusty French A Level gained years ago

Languages are harder A levels than a lot of the ones children do so employers like them. One of my children is in the top set for French. I did A level German. However I am not sure he is really as good at French as he needs to be to do it at A level. We certainly have awful problems in the UK at languages. The European Commission has many many fewer staff from the UK than it ought to be fair and it wants a lot more but needing 2 or 3 languages excludes most British people from the jobs.

Languages are harder A levels than a lot of the ones children

Not in the context of "facilitating subjects" they aren't. No one is going "Maths, Physics, History, yeah, they're OK I guess, but this one's got A Level French, wow."

followed usually by a two year masters. UK degrees leave people with a good first qualification at 21, a masters (leaving aside from crazy finance issues) at 22 and a PhD by 25

The standard length for PhDs in science these days is 4 years, not 3, this, coupled with many undergrad science degrees being 4 years too gives a total of at least 8 years study to PhD, not the 6 (plus masters, if bothered with) of days gone by.

As for UK PhDs not being competitive in the international market, personally I worked overseas for a number of years post-PhD, having gained mine from the world-leading group within my field. Many UK academics (by which I mean, staff at lecturer level and above, not post-docs) will have worked for a few years abroad. In sciences, it is quite common to spend a few years in the US.

Yes, sure, I worked overseas too after a UK PhD and got top positions, after graduating from a top UK group. But in general a graduate from Imperial who's done a 3 year PhD (it is still often 3 years for those who have done MMath or MPhys or equivalent) is not on a level playing field with a graduate from an Ivy League who had 5-6 years to do a PhD. It is far harder for UK PhDs to compete for top postdocs from Harvard Society of Fellows, Caltech prize fellowships, when they have had less time to do research.

Note that PhD funding under the EPSRC DTCs is under a 1 + 3 year model with the first year being taught courses. Those who come in with 4 year degrees get 0 + 3 instead. To get a 4th year funding has to be found which is easier in some departments/fields than others.

Short PhDs remain a big problem in maths/physics and related areas.