Sadness of Open Days

[Gemauve]

So on the stand this morning at 0905, I was approached by a charming woman and her keen, enthusiastic daughter. It's the first university they're visiting, in fact the first university that either of them has ever been to, but they're really looking forward to ... and they reel off a list of good places. Daughter really wants to do our subject, and has clearly checked out the top places.

And what A Levels are you doing?

Ah.

Well, you can't come here, and for what it's worth, we're slightly more relaxed than the other places you've named and I know that you won't be able to go to any of them to do our subject or anything even vaguely related. I didn't say "and on past experience from when we were even more relaxed to the point that we might have admitted you, you would almost certainly fail, and the last cohort where we did that less than 5% of them made it to finals". Sorry.

"My school said these subjects would be ideal".

They're catastrophically wrong. Did you look at any prospectuses before choosing your subjects? No. And off they went, their hopes destroyed by 0915.

What the fuck are schools playing at? Why do they let children who don't have middle class parents get into this situation?

dollythesheep: "physics at Durham is one of the most competitive courses to get into"

No it's not. Depending on the course (which university stats) between 1/3 and 1/2 of applicants get an offer.

Physics is more popular now than it was a few years ago, but (apart from Oxford and NatSci at Cambridge) its really not competitive compared with many other subjects. An applicant predicted As in both Maths and Physics will get multiple offers from good universities.

The problem with keeping on more subjects for longer is that it doesn't suit pupils who are not all-rounders. I went through a system that did just that & knew some very talented people who really struggled to get a place on a STEM degree course just because they were no good at languages or English Literature

My DDs are looking at degrees that sound like jobs - medicine, pharmacy, engineering etc. so does that make us lower class?

^We've told DS to choose A level subjects he likes and is good at.
Surely most people do the same?^

Maybe makes sense when they have no idea which way to go in 2-3 yrs (may not even want Uni). OP gave an example where the kid at 16 knew exactly where she wanted to go & what she wanted to do at University right up to knowing which universities she would like to go to, but then chose completely wrong A-levels because of bad advice (and inability to self-research the entry requirements?).

Is it really that impossible to go back & do the correct A-levels later?

What is the point of more vocational a-levels like business studies? I can see that pretty much any subject can be taught at an a-level standard depending on the content, but if the point of a-levels is admission to universities and universities don't like business studies, why is there a business studies a-level?

I know there is more to university than RG, but if RG won't accept a particular a-level it's almost like having a second tier a-level system without telling anyone.

The problem with keeping on more subjects for longer is that it doesn't suit pupils who are not all-rounders.

And those all round qualifications usually aren't at A Level standard, no matter what the boosters say (IB HL is, but you only do three subjects at HL, which takes us back to where we started). It's educational to look at a medical school admissions page and note the wide range of European qualifications that they reject out of hand with no negotiation, including the German Abitur. That's because they want a level of Chemistry that you simply won't get without to some degree at least specialising.

You can argue whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but the UK can run three year degrees to Bologna-process Bachelors' level when most of the rest of Europe takes four mostly because of earlier specialisation, and with (in the more selective universities at least) very low non-completion rates. Many European countries run a first year which has a very high non-completion rate to do that initial specialisation we do at A Level. They're different systems; ours is more efficient (fewer people take courses in HE that they do not complete) and quicker (you graduate at 21), but theirs offers more choice and more chance to make mistakes.

lljkk, that's my point, DS doesn't know what he wants to do, but luckily he's chosen solid subjects and will do a degree in any one of them.

And of course, if one wants to choose a particular career path, then one ought to have enough common sense to research the entry requirements. If the student can't work that one out, then I don't think they should be at uni. It's not rocket science, FGS.

I don't think there is a problem with vocational A levels like Business Studies, the problem occurs when students aren't properly informed on the right subjects for them to take.

I have 2 nieces taking Business Studies, one probably shouldn't have opted for it whereas it's an excellent choice for the other one.

Is it really that impossible to go back & do the correct A-levels later?

Funded how?

Well merry mouse IS the sole point of A levels to progress to a degree? And is it only worthwhile having a degree if it's from the RG? I'd answer no to both of those I'm afraid, so I'd argue there is most certainly a place for Business Studies etc though obviously not for the offspring of MNers

And yes llkkj it is very difficult to go back and take different A levels. You have to pay fees for a start, and you'll have no financial support - unless mum and dad are happy for you to spend yet another two years supporting to till you're 21! So evening classes while working during the day are the only option for many who found they took the wrong path at 16. And that's bloody hard work.

I dunno, night school while working? Personal loans? Bank of mom & dad?
It's how people do it where I come from.

What is the point of more vocational a-levels like business studies

Speaking about Business Studies specifically - no point at all. Speaking as someone who has taught on business studies courses and MBA courses. And whose DH used to be an admissions tutor in a business school. See also accountancy, law, economics.

There are vocational subjects (for example art) which have a huge point though.

Well merry mouse IS the sole point of A levels to progress to a degree?

Realistically, for many people, yes.

And is it only worthwhile having a degree if it's from the RG?

No, but An a-level should = an a-level. An a-level that is routinely rejected by RG universities for seemingly relevant subject admission really isn't being treated as an equivalent.

For comparison, a-levels like art and theatre studies may not impress somebody in a non-relevant subject because they are too practical. However if you want to study art or drama they are relevant.

On the other hand it seems ridiculous that taking a-levels in law and business studies could stand in the way of somebody whose ambition is to be a commercial lawyer.

For some subjects, you can DIY. DS1 has been self-studying Further Maths whilst working this year (though his university offer doesn't depend on it, which is just as well).

DS2 may well have to do the same. In fact, there have been mutterings about starting to do maths online over the summer.

Subjects requiring labs, coursework or the cooperation of an entire symphony orchestra are a bit trickier to do that way.

Things A-levels are good for that don't also mean university degrees:

officer grade in military
higher apprenticeship
jobs where you will stand out compared to applicants who only got GCSEs

probably more.

I agree with this - the "what's the point of studying law" comment. It's almost as if it is there as an early secret code way of sorting the "ins from the outs". I've lost count of the number of non university educated parents who are surprised to be told that law is the very last thing their DC should study in the sixth form if they want to be a solicitor. Doesn't seem right to me.

If 50% or less of 18 yr olds go to university then half or more don't. For some, A levels are the peak of their academic performance. For some even getting Ds and Es represents an achievement. Business Studies or similar might be a perfectly sensible A level for someone who wants to go straight into work maybe in retail or similar.

Going to a RG uni and doing a heavyweight academic degree then going on to a "top" job is one path through life. It definitely isn't the only one.

I do agree though that students who want to go that academic route should be given helpful and correct advice about A level choices.

Yep, there's more than one way to skin a cat. There's always a way;
longer and more expensive, but definitely do-able.

The very idea of a system that creates a situation in which someone who wants to study law at degree level should actively avoid studying law at the preceding level is utterly ridiculous. It's a system designed purely to exclude people who don't come from the 'right' background.

It's got very little to do with the background and more to do with the rigour of the A levels in question. At least, so far as business studies and accounting go (and remember, neither business studies nor accounting degrees are necessary (or even the favourite route) to pursue careers in business or accountancy, either). If the universities felt that the A levels were a Good Thing then they would make them part of their requirements and the posh schools would most certainly start offering them. People from not the 'right' background (so, I guess, people from - by your definition - the 'wrong' background) are not forced to do any of these A levels. They might be badly advised but that's to do with specific guidance available at specific schools (and bad advice can be found in posh schools too) not the background of the individual.

An argument might, possibly, be made that the universities in question aren't averse to counting out people who haven't done their research before making their choices (for accountancy in particular, a certain degree of scepticism is a sine qua non so just blindly taking what one teacher at your school tells you and not cross checking that with other sources really isn't a good indicator that you have the right basic characteristics). But doing sensible research isn't the sole provence of people from the 'right' background either.

dapoxen my comments about physics at Durham is linked to "telegraph most competitve course table" so up for scrutiny like all tables, Google it and see. Last year no 1 was physics at Durham this year it's maths at Cambridge I think, short memory?? . I'm sure we can find other stats to disprove but nevertheless my point was that taking psychology wasnt detrimental to him getting offers at top, selecting, competitve courses/uni. Despite Psychology having no relationship with physics really. Personal statement and grades are just as important factors not just A level choices. DS could have taken chemistry, better fit but wanted to do something contrasting to his other subjects which he found interesting but he equally found challenging he found it hard to get an A in.

But it should be possible to study any a-level subject rigorously/to a high level. If you can't it is essentially a 'cse' style a-level.

An a-level may not be relevant to a particular course - English won't enable you to study medicine and physics won't enable you to study French - but it should enable you to progress in the relevant subject area.

That's a good point MerryMouse. So we either have a situation where A levels such as Business Studies, Sociology, ICT etc are not rigorous enough and if that's the case that should be rectified. Or we have a situation where they are perfectly fine but some universities are sneering at them and we don't know why.

I was told by a Law lecturer that they don't like applicants with Law A level because they like to teach the subject from scratch.

Law may be a good choice for a student who wishes to enter employment after A levels or study for a degree in something like Business Studies.

The Telegraph 'competitive' courses are the ones - and only one from each uni is allowed - for which that year's freshers have the highest value of UCAS points. Nothing to do with the more usual definition of competitive, as being to do with numbers of applicants per place! In fact, in the 2013 table, Oxford MFL was second, which has about a 1 in 3 success rate!

This is really such a MN thread! the vast majority of kids with their Business Studies and ICT A levels do manage to get university places if that is what they want. And the vast majority of employers are quite happy with their employees having degrees even in Media Studies from post-92s. And once you've got a couple of years work behind you you're as competitive a candidate as the next person.

Obviously there are a few exceptions, but mostly kids do OK even if their original choice of A levels was wasn't MN stellar.

And watch out for the first post 92 to offer medicine in a few years!