Facilitating subjects scrapped by Russell Group universities

[Mygoodlygodlingtons]

"Announcing its decision, the Russell Group, which is made up of 24 universities, said the list of preferred A-levels had been “misinterpreted” by students who mistakenly thought these were the only subjects that top universities would consider."

:www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/russell-group-scraps-preferred-a-levels-list-after-arts-subjects-hit

Poor old Law : it is interesting how this conversation has moved away from/isn't settling on the heart of the issue which is the decline of Arts subjects. Law is not in decline AFAIK. Clever students may well often be very artistic , very musical, wonderful actors : they simply are not taking that which they are most talented at. And , especially in the case of music , which is a subject at GCSE dominated by more academically able students, the uptake at A Level is in terminal decline. Students are now only taking A Level Music if they want to do music at university.

Music isn’t even offered at A level at ds’s school piggy.

(Incidentally he just got on track for a 4 & a 5 in his Yr 10 English exams!!!!!!!)

Is it necessarily a problem if talented students aren't taking Music A level, provided they continue with it as an extracurricular activity, in particular if they're doing the grade exams? Similarly, perhaps, with drama? (I'm willing to be told it is a problem!)

DD knows quite a lot of English students who seem to do a lot of acting, inc eg participating in the Fringe - either they didn't do Drama A level or they ignored anyone who might have said they shouldn't.

Anyway... is any new advice available on the website yet? (Apologies if I've missed a link).
I guess the old info, even if actually quite accurate, was too often misinterpreted so should be updated.

No, nor at my DSs as I said upthread comefrom . V sad. I know of three year 11s leaving the school, forced to look elsewhere.

Mine about to do his year 10 exams...! Shudder (music lowest grade , ironically. Music teachers can shoot themselves in the foot with their elitism!)

It's a problem if you are a music teacher errol, yes!

New advice is there... not had a chance to look yet.

I don't think it's a problem if bright students who want to be doctors , scientists or whatever carry on extra curricular music : that's great. I think it's a problem of students who would like to do A Level music are discouraged because it isn't on a list somewhere and do - say- history because they feel it's better. they might end up not doing as well at it, not liking it , or missing out on a lot.

But if music continues to decline there will be fewer full time music teachers, so fewer extra curricular activities for those students who want to supplement their school experience.

It's a problem if you are a music teacher errol, yes!

I very nearly put, 'problem to pupils not teachers'. Well, maybe a shift is needed, more and better music teaching lower down the school to encourage broader participation? Or spend the money on peripatetic instrument teachers for poorer kids instead of salaries for A level teachers who I'm guessing will tend to have more privileged students by that stage? (Apologies if I'm way off base on that...). I think music education is a good thing, btw - I'm just not at all sure it's being done fairly and effectively at the moment.

Actualy music although not on the list is quite well regarded and history English and music for example would be a perfectly good combination of subjects for most good universities. Law would not be.
So making sure teenagers know those rules and code as it were is helpful for them

I'm not an expert but I think the peri teachers comes from different funding : the schools don't pay AFAIK. I do agree about broadening participation but I do also believe that - in this particular instance- the RG list has contributed to the specific decline at A Level in music, also drama, less so art and some other subjects under that general umbrella.

It is a problem for music yes, although many units accept Grade 7/8 the skills developed in ABRSM exams are quite different from A level, especially for budding composers & musicologists and if schools stop being unable to offer it as an academic subject it restricts music to those who can afford to pay for private tuition. Instrumentalists playing at a high level will be needing 40-60 mins a week lessons at around £40 per hour anyway (if not subsidised by schools) and theory lessons would usually need to be arranged on top plus the exams themselves are expensive.

Drama is not such a problem academically as many of the skills you need for a drama degree can be developed in other subjects like English. (For context I did drama & music A levels and studied both subjects as a major/minor combination at uni)

What was interesting this week in an unrelated conversation I had about this with my school G and T lead is that she didn't know what Russell Group unis are : she herself had swallowed whole the notion that they were the 'best universities' and really did not know it was a self selected group of universities, excluding, for example, Bath.

It pains me to say it, but I agree that many teachers (especially those in non selective schools) are woefully under informed about HE. I have found out more about UCAS from Mumsnet! There is absolutely no focus on training in this aspect of education.

Looked at the new website btw : clear as mud doesn't cover it! Its interactive list of A Levels excludes many of them, randomly!

Drama is an excellent A level to go with English!!! If you read about the A level facilitating subjects, and Cambridge still has its own list, you would know these two are a great marriage. Not all three A levels have to be facilitating and you should know this Errol! Two would be fine plus Drama. For those of you who don’t know, plays are literature!!!

It definitely excludes ones not offered everywhere. Definitely some niche ones too.

However when it says these A levels are useful or you must take this A level, there is possibly scope for the third one to be less obvious. This will depend on the university and the course and how selecting the course will be. Again, no point in putting a student in a worse position than the majority applying. It certainly leads to less social mobility if poor choices are made.

Not all three A levels have to be facilitating and you should know this Errol! Two would be fine plus Drama. For those of you who don’t know, plays are literature!!!

Yes, I do know that. And, doubtless, so do the students DD knows.

If you find anyone overstating what's needed, the Trinity list might be considered a sort of upper bound sanity check:

www.trin.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/applying/a-level-subject-combinations/

My point about Drama was that the students obviously did receive good advice on A levels and hopefully didn’t have anyone saying 3 facilitating subjects is required. However I think we still have a problem where DC don’t do any facilitating subjects and then effectively won’t get offers. It’s often poorer area schools that seem to not realise this.

** Re the drama, I'm not convinced that any advice they may or may not have received actually made much difference at the end of the day - not doing drama doesn't stop talented people from acting, otoh doing it doesn't stop clever kids (with other appropriate A levels) from getting to good unis.

However I think we still have a problem where DC don’t do any facilitating subjects and then effectively won’t get offers. It’s often poorer area schools that seem to not realise this.

On this we probably all agree. And the other issue is that some who don't know what they want to go on to may spread themselves too thin. This may still allow access to courses with no specific subject entry requirements (these exist even at Oxbridge), but they can't keep all the doors open. E.g chemistry is necessary for various degrees but it's unlikely to be sufficient for good science degrees if it's been done alongside eg history and French - even though they're all 'facilitating' subjects. (I'm sure most of us on this thread know that!)

Kids who know before the start of year 12 what they want to do really shouldn't be running into problems choosing the right subjects - uni course websites are clear. It's the ones who aren't sure who may be floundering and make a poor set of choices, especially if they can only do 3 subjects. In my family of STEM types, A levels are perfect for getting to uni with the necessary education to hit the ground running on a rigorous course ... but I can't help feeling that for many (esp. non STEM/vocational) has students something broader and less deep might be more appropriate, followed by something closer to the US 'minors and major' degree structure.

I personally think joint honours is the way to go. Allied subjects but depth in both. This is why languages should be encouraged! My friend’s DS is doing politics with 6 hours contact time. Had he dine a language as well he would have done a lot more work and possibly more employable as juggling two subjects says quite a lot about you! I’m not convinced about liberal arts degrees because in the end, what is the evidence they lead anywhere? Apart from needing a masters to specialise?

I’m not convinced about liberal arts degrees because in the end, what is the evidence they lead anywhere? Apart from needing a masters to specialise?

I'm not convinced either, necessarily- but then again, some traditional degrees, even if followed by a masters, don't always seem to lead anywhere either, for those who aren't top notch for academia or suited to 'graduate program' type of jobs.

Sorry, my thoughts are meandering way off topic!

The "all subjects are equal" mantra chanted by many teachers is what made the facilitating subjects list very important. Just like SATS were originally conceived to prevent some schools/teachers actually teaching nothing and failing their pupils.

Dd who has just chosen her A Levels was given no advice. None whatsoever. She could have chosen PE. Music Technology and German - none of which she has any prowess in.

Sil is a teacher in a comp and was hauled over the coals for telling a bright girl who had ambitions to be a doctor that Health & Social Care was not the best course to include. Sil was told that she must not denigrate any qualification.

Actually at ds's sixth form I had to sit and listen to the Higher Education person at the parents' information evening state that all institutions were equal and there was no difference between the University of the South West and Oxford. Whaddayado?

Whaddayado

Heckle? Laugh loudly and cynically?

Of course, a subject like Health and Social care shouldn't be 'denigrated' - it might be the most appropriate choice for some students. But surely to goodness the teachers should be at least telling their pupils to look on uni websites for the requirements of courses they might be interested in?

Teachers don't necessarily have to provide detailed information (I'd hope a would-be medic would have the nous to check requirements for herself) but it's bad if they're supplying misinformation.

i'm glad they did this as i though the list was silly and out of date. How can you say doing History or Geography A levels are more stretching than say something like Economics....especially if you are wanting to do an Economics Degree? If they have to have a list then it should at least be accurate and reflect modern day, not some out of touch aged philosophy

How can you say doing History or Geography A levels are more stretching than say something like Economics

Is that what they actually said, or implied?