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?

All the lawyers I speak to (and our community is heaving with them) advise against even attempting a legal career without serious professional extras: MFL, sciences, an MBA. Preferably all three!

I'm right with you on this OP. I work in higher education and I used to constantly bang on about facilitating subjects to any of dc's friends who would listen.
The Russell group brought out guidance around this a few years ago to try to combat ignorance around the importance of traditional subjects in the university selection process but I don't think it's been widely publicised. Consequently the same schools and fe colleges are still promoting btecs and non traditional subjects to pupils who aspire to go to a good uni and they just won't meet the criteria. It makes me want to weep and is another leg up to those from fee paying and selective schools who have and pass on knowledge around what universities want.

Entry requirements need to be clear and explicit

THat would be nice, but it's not always possible. And would work against being able to make individual decisions based on individual applications.

I think there would be unintended consequences.

We can try to be as transparent as possible, but we can't say that we want "X, Y, and Z" and nothing else ...

I have been trying to avoid this thread because I knew it would irritate me, lots of slagging off of 'inferior' subjects. Yadda yadda.

I teach two subjects one is facilitating and one is not. I did a joint honours degree in these. The non-facilitating is seen as 'easy', so I get lots of less able students sent my way. In many ways the subject is much harder than the non facilitating subject. Thus, the students do less well. It drives me nuts that people with absolutely no idea of the subject make such sweeping statements about its apparent ease.

The reasons many of them are staying on when they aren't able are often that 1) school funding has been cut and their desperate for the funding so encourage students to stay on that aren't suitable to try to stay afloat. 2) All students are required to stay in some form of education until they are 18. This thread shows how vocational qualifications are viewed, so they / their parents feel the pressure to take A levels. 3) as more and more people have higher qualifications, a levels have become sort of a default expectation.

On the subject of the advice given by schools, obviously it varies from place to place and teacher by teacher. When 'selling' my course I always advise students to select carefully, I always tell them to check the prospectus for their chosen uni / course, or to speak directly to admissions tutors before making their decision.

Finally, choosing one non facilitating subject doesn't bar you from entrance to RG or Oxbridge - just last year one of my students was accepted to read History at Oxford having studied Drama.

Its not just about what subjects you do, its also about self confidence to try

This Neurosurgeon has no Science A Levels at all ....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Marsh_(neurosurgeon)

LosingNemo I understand your irritation. My field straddles "facilitating" and "non-facilitating" subjects, and the latter is as rigorous as the former. It's a darn good degree programme at a RG university. We will take BTEC students, if they have an A Level as well, and if they received all Distinctions.

Yet, our intending applicants still need to know that we want their A levels to be in subjects which have a high proportion of analytical skills, demonstrated by rigorous assessments, generally written.

Finally, choosing one non facilitating subject doesn't bar you from entrance to RG or Oxbridge - just last year one of my students was accepted to read History at Oxford having studied Drama.

Drama is on the Trinity List B for Arts subjects, so that's hardly an example of "never mind what the advice says, this subject is OK". It's OK. It's listed as OK. You're also slightly missing the point of facilitating subjects. As Informed Choices says right at the start:

"This guide will help you to see which advanced level subjects — which we call ‘facilitating subjects’ — open doors to more degrees and more professions than others. It’s not about ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ subjects, but the right ones"

No one is saying that Drama is "soft", which is the straw man you appear to be wrestling with. It's not, and it's listed as perfectly OK for getting into some of the most demanding courses at the most selective universities. It does, however, restrict choices in a way that, say, Physics may not. That's all.

The subjects under discussion are those on List C, or those with very limited applicability in List B.

I think the problem is less vocational qualifications or btecs than that only a-levels and degrees have been seen as respectable therefore every course is shoehorned into an a-level or degree shape, whether appropriate or not.

DS has two medicine offers having just done chemistry biology and an MFL A levels. With maths AS. Private school, excellent A level choice advice. Facilitating subjects booklet given to us in year 11. MFL an asset, in fact medicine with spanish degree offered by Manchester

It's good to see which subjects open doors, but I think more consideration should be given to post uni and whether the degree you intend really does prepare you for that career. After all that's the same issue. You might up with a qualification that yes, opens doors but not any you want.

So in effect that's what I ended up with a degree that didn't unlock the doors I wanted. Just as depressing really.

I think more consideration should be given to post uni and whether the degree you intend really does prepare you for that career

Which leads us neatly to what one might call facilitating degrees.

There's a lot of maths graduates working in finance. There's a lot of maths graduates working in motor sport. There's a lot of maths graduates working in computing. There's a lot of maths graduates working in the civil service. There's a lot of maths graduates working as lawyers.

Yes and mine was chemistry, but it still didn't facilitate anything I was remotely interested in.

Yes and mine was chemistry, but it still didn't facilitate anything I was remotely interested in.

So why did you do it, then?

Well I was told that it would lead to all sorts of things and not to worry about it, the push was women into science and engineering. Excellent RG uni, job done as far as school were concerned. I know I could do all sorts of things with it, but they didn't interest me.

I think mentioning neurosurgeons who studied medicine in the 1960s isn't that relevant for those wanting to study medicine now.
If you aren't interested enough in science to do science A levels many med schools would wonder why you want to be a doctor and if it's about "prestige" not love of the subject matter.
If you dislike/aren't good at certain A levels then a course that requires those A levels maybe isn't a good idea.

I have tried lots of jobs.. My cv reads like a cross between a uni prospectus and a graduate jobs compendium!

I know I could do all sorts of things with it, but they didn't interest me.

So what would you rather have done? Chemistry will open all sorts of non-science doors, too.

Funny enough, I'm in the process of trying to hire a mathematician.

agree there are a zillion career opportunities for people with math degrees or excellent math skills. Not a good reason by itself to try to do a math degree and some people with solid math degrees will still end up being unemployable.

I think we all need to start this stuff much earlier. My ds chose his gcse subjects at the end of year 8.

He and we were not at all ready. He has changed massively in the last year and there are two subjects he would not have done if we could choose now. But the schools are under so much pressure to push push push push I am not surprised they're not doing nuclear fission studies in primary school

I've read (some) of this thread so apologies if I'm repeating anything mentioned earlier .......

Our dd has just taken her GCSEs and has been accepted at a couple of sixth form colleges to take: Eng lit, Music, RE and Media. She loved these subjects at GCSE and is predicted to achieve very highly. She has always struggled with maths (possibly will need to retake?) and didn't enjoy the sciences or MFL.

I have no hesitation in supporting her decision to take the courses that she has selected. She is thinking about doing English/media at uni .... but isn't sure. I have no idea what type of uni she will realistically aspire to ....... because until she starts her A level courses, how does anyone know?

I don't consider myself a negligent mother for allowing her to choose her preferred subjects: having looked at uni courses online, most seem to specify Eng at A level and aren't specific about other subjects......

"About twenty years ago I had an interview at Oxford. . . .My state school did fuck all to prepare me. I was sent to interview having no idea what to expect. "

Cambridge wasn't like that even 25 years ago! I went to interview with zero knowledge of what to expect. I had managed to pick a college based on reading the prospectus and rejecting any that asked for STEP or S levels since I didn't know what they were and certainly didn't have them.

Admittedly I struck lucky in that the director of studies for my subject had left school at 15 himself, but even before I got to the stage of interview the college was incredibly supportive, sent loads of info, offered money for transport etc etc.

I actually think that in that instance it was far less intimidating than other universities in that it was much less impersonal and felt like real people were interested in you and would look out for you.

Gemauve , I would have been better doing nursing, or similar, radiography etc. the career offered by these allow transportability, across the UK easily, and part time working.

Gemauve , I would have been better doing nursing, or similar, radiography etc

All of them one job qualifications. The grass is always greener, so you assume you'd have enjoyed those more than the jobs you've had. If you hadn't, you'd have been worse off. Hindsight's a wonderful thing.

most seem to specify Eng at A level and aren't specific about other subjects......

As it happens, the others you've listed are OK (in that English plus any two of the other three would be OK almost anywhere), but the point of this whole thread is that if you're applying for English at somewhere selective, English, Business Studies and ICT isn't the same as English, History and German, even though both are "English and two others".

I know I could do all sorts of things with it, but they didn't interest me

I'm really not sure that is the school or the university's problem, however.