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?

Yes, and I certainly didn't mean to diss the TBs and railways - in that case it was clearly authentic and genuine (hence why it was effective). And obv for whereas for music the grade 8 thing is relevant , it isn't for history...
But there are school where they insist on putting all the extra stuff 'prefect' in - which is just a waste of words.

I am going to say something that will no doubt get me flamed.

If you are not capable of meeting the following criteria you should not be considering going to university

1. Choose A levels only from traditional subjects (ie Maths, Fthr. Maths, 3 sciences, Geography, History, English Lit, .

1. Get at least BBB

1. Go to a Russell Group uni.

If you are not meeting these criteria you are wasting your time and money going to university. Do not choose weird A levels (eg Business Studies) or do a BTec.

I am constantly amazed at the useless A level choices even my DSs private school allow pupils to choose.

Uni's know that students who are not selecting the facilitating subjects are more likely to be unable to cope with the level of academic rigour required and that is why they have selected an "easier" subject.

I don't think there's enough evidence, correlation not being causation and all, for the second part of that statement. It is a fact that students with less preferred subjects don't do as well as those with preferred subjects. The reasons for that, both why students select those subjects and why they don't do as well at university, are probably the stuff that someone with the urge to do a PhD in education policy could attack.

It's certainly the case that there is a lot of pressure in universities to make entrance as transparent and as accepting as possible. If people aren't decoding the entrance requirements, we should find out why, because the intentions are not to confuzzle. Removing alternative routes (for example, tightening or removing BTEC pathways) is only done after a great deal of agonising, and the effect on underrepresented groups is at the forefront of our minds. But no-one benefits from us accepting poorly prepared candidates who are going to fail the first year, and we cannot fix in nine months problems that may have been fourteen years in the making.

I'm afraid to say that my gut feel, evidence welcome, is that the move to BTECs being exclusively internally assessed marked the point at which they were no longer really suitable preparation for some academic courses, because students just don't have the skills to take exams at post-16 standards. Again, someone else's PhD beckons. That would imply that the problem with the "non traditional" A levels is that they, too, are usually substantially internally or continuously assessed.

Risky tactic re the TBs and railways - you might get away with it, but anything that is a bit contrived or off-piste will turn people off

I think it can depend on whether or not the course/university interviews. I often pick up on something in the PS to start the conversation, or even to challenge them -- to see how they respond to debate & challenge. Can they think?

Lancelottie - Back in the days of yore when I had my Cambridge interviews (2 separate interviews with the current and incoming director of studies at my future college) one interview had a small amount of maths and a lot of discussion of Blakes 7, and the other interview had a smaller amount of maths and a lot of discussion of Dr Who. This discussion prompted by some things I had written in the minuscule hobbies/interests bit of the UCCA form - and the enthusiasm all coming from the fellows not from me (I mean, obviously I was interested but I was a bit surprised!). Of course, they already had my entrance exam results so the interview was more to see if I had two heads (and an extra arm) I think.

I also advise only doing Art, Music or modern language at A level if you intend to do that as a degree or a very closely related subject.

Gaspode -- yep, that's right! He is now the proud possessor of a very kind Oxbridge rejection letter saying that the discussion they had about some obscure steam engine valve had made it the professor's favourite interview of the year. Oh, and pointing out that he should have done further maths.

Which takes this discussion full circle, really.

Lucky you, Narvi! Mine started 'Come in. Sit down. Tell me the difference between an aldehyde and a ketone.'

I doubt if you're right about MFLs, MoreBeta. Modern languages can be a great asset in all sorts of ways.

One girl at DSs school had English Lit., Geography and Physics A level and wanted to do medicine

Who on earth advised her I don't know.

MoreBeta -- in my field, you advice is not wholly accurate. And I'm not in a field which is an "easy" one. For someone aiming for an Arts & Humanities degree, I'd ALWAYS advise a MFL if that's available. Music can be a demanding academic subject, as are some performing arts curricula (not all).

This is a subject of nuances. There is no one size fits all advice for every applicant for every degree programme. So the schools, who supposedly have knowledge of each individual pupil applying to university, need to be part of that tailored nuanced advice. So do parents, so do the applicants themselves.

The issue is about what to do when people involved in this tailored advice aren't up to speed, or blinkered, or prejudiced (about pupils, universities etc).

I also advise only doing Art, Music or modern language at A level if you intend to do that as a degree or a very closely related subject

I've not looked at the numbers, but here in STEM-land, I'd say Music or MFL as a third A Level is a pretty good predictor of quality. Circular argument, of course, because students who do those subjects and then apply for STEM are typically more affluent, from better schools, etc, etc, so it's probably a symptom rather than a cause.

Modern languages are very popular with lots of employers even if the job doesn't require any language skills. Why do you not advise it MoreBeta?

Gosh, that's dire. A private school? Did her parents ask for a refund?

I doubt my DSS1 would have got an internship in a top consulting firm this summer (second year) without his MFL skills to add to his quantitative degree course.

because students who do those subjects and then apply for STEM are typically more affluent, from better schools, etc, etc, so it's probably a symptom rather than a cause

And this is our problem: there is pressure on universities to right the wrongs of the previous 18 years of socio-economic advantage.

Gasp - MFL yes useful but have advised DS1 to only do Spanish up to AS level and spend time working in Spain to get his spoken and cultural understanding up to scratch but he does not need to understand Spanish literature. MFL is seen as a 'nice to have' by employers but not essential and getting a degree in Spanish does not put you ahead of a native Spanish speaker if Spanish is crucial to a job.

DS wants to do Law.

Unfortunately the phrase "Most successful applications will have" is a phrase that a naive 16 year old may easily misinterpret. They may feel a slightly different subject choice could possibly help them stand out from the crowd.

Entry requirements need to be clear and explicit. I can understand that Universities do not want to exclude able students who do not meet all criteria, but could include a phrase "we will consider alternatives if the student can demonstrate ..." to circumvent that issue

MFL are well regarded as challenging - and they also help springboard you to keep the language going and to present yourself as a rounded person, so u r wrong here. They are also challenging in another key way, as the student actually has to speak out loud coherently under exam conditions (albeit somewhat less spontaneously than would be ideal for a perfect test!).

An applicant who wants to be a Doctor and doesn't choose science A levels isn't switched on enough to be a Doctor in my opinion. I'm sure even my 5 year old appreciates that medicine involves science and not playing the flute.

Sometimes people change interests and I imagine that's what happened in that case. And that's just the way life goes. Dh chose the wrong A levels, he went for Arty creative A levels but ended up after studying for Btecs and then an engineering degree doing a job that involves science and maths and wishes he had considered medicine. But that's just life, it wasn't really anyone's fault that he went along an unsuitable path initially. It's never too late to change direction but after getting used to a salary and having a mortgage it would've been a risky and expensive move for him to become a student again.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of successful applicants to oversubscribed humanities degrees (yeah, I know, and it's going to get worse, too) don't have an MFL A Level. Again, correlation is not causation, and all that.

A-level MFL is not sufficient preparation to do anything meaningful in a professional context. That is not a reason to give up but rather a reason to go beyond.

I actually think science - eg a degree in chemistry or physics, is the best way into law at a magic circle firm nowadays, followed by a conversion course. The market is flooded and under huge pressure. So many young people are parked as paralegals for years with no clear progression. It's not like the old days. There should be a whole other thread about this!

Certainly, when my younger went on work experience at an up-market barristers' chambers, the advice from "good humanities or science degree than post-graduate law, for God's sake don't do a law degree". How true this is I don't know, and I realise barrister and solicitor have different pathways.

Gasp - DW helped the school out as a parent volunteer doing practice 'Oxbridge interview technique' with this pupil and other pupils. DW predicted with 100% accuracy the students who would get in.

Their personal statement were carbon copies apart from one male student who did get in. He had picked standard A levels and most importantly had an opinion on a wide range of topics she asked him about and a very original personal statement

DW and me were at Oxford. The interview revealed who was Oxbridge standard very quickly. All had the usual excellent A level results.

Some though clearly had no idea why they had chosen certain A level choices and had no idea why they were applying a for a given degree subject. DW was really shocked how badly prepared and advised they were by the school. We will certainly be very closely advising our DSs.