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 think that probably derives from the fact that in the UK, a PhD is (at least in sciences) considered to be an entry-level qualification. This will then usually be followed by at least 4 (often more) years of post-docs before gaining an independent research position (where they will be eligible to be PI on their own grants - which is not the case for standard post-docs). Even post-docs in the UK are considered (and treated like) trainees, rather than independent researchers. I'd say that the US fellowships you are talking about are broadly equivalent to fellowships such as the David Phillips Fellowships in the UK, which are not standard postdocs, but intended for those with 3-10 years post PhD research experience.

Many postgrads in the UK think a PhD will be an immediate gateway to a lectureship or equivalent, without realising that with only a PhD, they will be vastly under qualified for a lectureship in a decent university.

duh, yes of course. The facilitating subjects are good ones to do and I certainly did not mean to suggest French was harder than maths or physics. Just that compared with non-facilitating subjects it is harder.

In my field most people hired in the UK didn't do PhDs in the UK. Everybody, whether they graduate from top places in the US or from the UK, needs to do years of postdocs, but the US grads get the top postdoc jobs straight from PhD while the UK people typically get the second rate jobs (even when graduating from top UK universities). This means that the latter are just not shooting at the right level to get permanent positions. UK trained people don't tend to get the better jobs as second post-docs either, as it's hard to produce top rate work when you've left your supervisor, you're on your own, but you're still not ready to develop your own projects.

I don't know of any PhD student who thinks they have any chance of getting a lectureship straight out of PhD. It never happens, unless you do Nobel prize or Field Medal level stuff in your PhD. A difference between fields, I guess, if other postgrads think this.

I suppose that depends on what you define as "second rate" jobs.

I know many PhD students who think they will be able to get a lectureship after their PhD. It doesn't happen (apart from in very exceptional circumstances), but many starting their PhD seem to think it is a realistic ambition. It's a difference between what students perceive as realistic and what is actually realistic.

My kids got good career advice at their schools, but considering that the students are 16 when they choose their A levels I think you are blaming parents for not putting in the work these students should have done. Both my kids' schools stressed that they are the ones who have to do the research as they have more time to put into it and it's their futures.
When I was deciding what to do I was often at the library in the career section and looking at university entrance requirements. I encouraged my kids to do the same as did their dad and the schools. My son wanted to do engineering and knew the entrance requirements of all the unis he was interested in and looked into other career options before settling on engineering.
My son didn't even want us going to open days with them.
This shouldn't be "poor teenagers lazy parents" but "lazy teenagers who should have spent more time thinking about their futures and less time playing games"
My teenagers have far more spare time than me.

"the students are 16 when they choose their A levels"

My son has to make his preliminary choices when he goes back after half term. He'll be 15 and two months. This is the end of his research period into what A levels he should take, not the beginning.

He's lucky that there's no way his school (or his parents :) ) will let him choose inappropriate subjects for what/where he says he wants to study. Not all kids are that lucky, and I think you have to cut 14-15 year olds some slack if they are told by adults who should know better that all A levels are equal (and sometimes that all A level equivalents are equal too. DD has a friend who took BTECs because they sounded relevant to what he was interested in, he was told they were Alevel equivalents, and his family has no history of going to uni and assumed the teachers would know. Guess what - RG unis wouldn't look at him. His younger brother is doing Alevels because now they know, but the older one's missed out.).

We find that lots of students make poor decisions about their GCSE options - often when they are 13!

Not helped by schools giving shite advice about equivalence!

Oh yes we had that; BTEC level 2 worth 2 GCSEs in year 9 & when we finally got the certificate in year 11 it was only worth 1......couldn't decide between a) a lie, b) incompetence c) government moving the goalposts

The problem is that awarding bodies believe that the set the equivalence. They don't: the market does. Imperial and elsewhere, for example, have a number of courses with a blanket "No BTEC" policy, and there is nothing that an awarding body can do to alter that.

So anyone who is taking an "equivalent" qualification is gambling on people who might later look at the qualification - an employer, a university - believing the claims of equivalence. It's hard to think of a qualification which is worth more than the awarding body's claim, but it's pretty easy to think of those which are worth less. Or, sadly, worthless.

Well, my friend's DS has just started at a RG uni with a BTEC! It really pays to do your own research with the unis directly, and not rely on second hand information!

It really pays to do your own research with the unis directly, and not rely on second hand information!

Except that you won't necessarily get enough warning. University admission requirements aren't published until about 12 months prior to entry, but decisions on subjects are made more than 24 months prior to entry. BTEC requirement change quickly, and can involve additional modules, while A Level requirement changes are mostly just a tightening of grades.

And even if the university allows the BTEC some employers may look askance when seeing a CV (although not all of course).

The vast vast vast majority of employers won't give a stuff about a BTEC once you've got your first class RG degree.

The days of the employer recruiting this way are pretty much gone bar a very few traditional type roles - I know these sorts of jobs are your only experience greengrow but there's a far bigger world out there now!

I've never been asked about my A'levels and have never even included them on my CV. Does anyone bother once they've gained higher and more relevant qualifications?

*I think MFL students do not need Maths.

MFL graduates applying for jobs might, of course*

Absolutely!
I did an MFL degree, and had maths A Level.
Chose Maths because my boyfriend did it and as he also did Art would never have seen him otherwise as an 'antidote' to my essay subjects.
Guess which bit of my CV gets most recruiters interested...?
Have been lucky enough to successfully have two separate careers, and although MFL and Maths was not directly relevant to either, they have been facilitating, and I think this still hold true today, because recruiters do tend to think of them as 'difficult' and therefore it is a good 'hook' in the CV.

My DS is at a very selective indie, and the DC there choose widely differing A levels - they are lucky enough to have so many A level students that DC can choose pretty much every combination, and they choose subjects that interest them , because all the subjects on offer are 'serious' subjects.
Many of those choosing eg English, History, Theatre Studies also choose Maths, because it is well-taught and they are able pupils who could probably do any subject.
Maths, if well-taught, is relatively easy, and facilitating.

As someone working in the humanities, I would love to see students coming in with some knowledge of stats.

I think it's a real misconception that you can split science from humanities - if you are going to read about research you need an understanding of what figures mean and how they were arrived at, and that's before you even start doing your own research. But what happens is that students go in one direction at school and swallow this line of being a science or humanities student and so I hear things like 'oh, i've never been good at numbers' and they are almost proud of it.