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

Not as far back as O Level but we did both for GCSE.

There was a spell when I started teaching of giving some groups (and some cohorts) the combined Single GCSE and then giving weaker groups iGCSE English Language because it was an easier course and you could boost your A*-C pass rate.

Hmmm. I am sure the EBacc thing just set into stone what was already a given about Eng Lit. There was a period when some schools put Eng Lit into options. But this was rarely done and was unpopular with English staff. it was also divisive as it tended to be done on ability : thereby threatening to turn Eng Lit into a really elite subject and one very dominated by girls. Pretty sure Gove was a key player in knocking that on the head.

If Eng Lit was not compulsory, there would be quite a lot of students who also eschew history and anything involving writing who would get no culture 'hit' whatsoever beyond about year 8.

In Scotland, the two subjects have never been divided so we just do 'English'. It is maths and arithmetic that are divided!

Yes. Literature was compulsory as were all the Ebacc subjects back in the O level days. When we give more choice we find people making choices that are not so good for them!

I’ve nothing against film by the way. I just don’t have much time to sit down and enjoy them. Interestingly my DDs don’t either and as far as I am aware, it’s not s topic of conversation within their peer group. Lots of other things are and we have a full cultural and sporting calendar!

I think for a number of recruiters they are now looking at A level subjects. So getting into a university is one thing, getting into a good grad scheme or training opportunity is another.

I think Psychology isn’t very difficult to get into, except at the most high flying universities. If they only select on grades and then go into clearing and reduce the grades it’s all a bit of a nonsense. Most psychology grads are never psychologists in the long run. They obviously could have written they wanted to be a train driver on their ps and still get in! My neighbour’s DD trained as a social worker after her psychology degree as she never secured a psychologist training position. It’s a tough world.

I think many Teachers are not qualified to give advice on A level combinations or what university a DC should apply to. I tend to agree that they think their own institution is good enough! Or say they are all just as good as each other!

Stem grads tend to get employment and earn well. Even nursing pay is higher than many humanities grads earn after 5 years and with all the gnashing of teeth about their salaries, and the bursary debate, who would have thought it?! Doctors do best! Economists do well too and Engineers. So yes, numerate people do well.

Many jobs still involve reading information, making sense of it and relaying that information to others. Therefore English lit is useful for any job requiring this skill. MFL grads can do this and it is a strength of historians too. We do need people with a range of skills so if people are confident about doing maths, why not? I would say English, Film and Media was a dreadful combination. Lots of Economics degrees at better universities will not count Business Studies if it’s taken with Economics. That leaves the candidate not qualified to apply for the courses. Until recently you needed FM to do Economics at LSE. No one told my friends DS at his grammar school so he didn’t get in. It all takes research and time and teachers cannot be expected to do it. His parents trusted the school though and he was the first in either side of the family to go to university. The school offered FM so good advice is critical.

Or say they are all just as good as each other!
We have to be very careful with what we say. It's a touchy subject and people can get quite het up if you suggest some universities are better.

I still believe (having attended postgraduate courses at one top uni and one not top) there is a massive difference between courses and the courses that typically have higher entry requirements (excluding practical or vocational) will tend to be the more academically challenging universities. We see the same on entry to teaching training. Some trainees have a first from poorly regarded university (that is brilliant in a specific vocational area) and their subject knowledge is absolutely awful. I'd sooner have someone with a 2:2 from a better course than another graduate with a first who knows less than some of our GCSE students.
After all, staff are always told how important it is to differentiate for your C/D students vs your A/A* students, but we are meant to believe that a university cohort of students with As and Bs is going to have the same level of challenge as a course that accepts on Ds and Es?

My line is always 'obviously you will need to look at individual courses and seek specialist advice, but if you are asking my opinion knowing you as a student then...'

So, if we tend to agree that not all teachers are best placed to advise due to a range of biases (and the same could be said of parents),who then should be giving this advice?

I agree that some teachers give poor advice. But ime school careers advisers are even worse!

My career advisor friends back in the day were brilliant. I think, Piggy, people on MN! Just well versed people who might even be volunteers. Schools never ask for help.

Lola: Just because a subject is touchy - it shouldn’t be avoided. Surely you wouldn’t say Wolverhampton was just as good as Durham? That’s an outright lie. It’s this sort of data that DC need. If they could never get the grades for Durham, fair enough. If they could, surely say A is better than B if it’s screamingly obvious. If various universities have merits, say so. The student should be thinking about value for money and employment. If they get neither, then poor advice is costing them a lot!

We never ask for help because of DBS partly : but, also, how do we check those people have up to date info and aren't biased? It is a minefield. Careers advisers are being axed from some schools and the ones we have really just access websites.

I honestly think most teachers just need a bit of training. teachers often don't know much until they have DCs at a particular stage.

Depressing but true, LolaSmiles.

I heard it myself at ds's higher education information evening. They so plug the local institutions that I'm tempted to think they're getting a backhander! I agree that some of the teachers have been to, er, not very esteemed establishments and have a kind of belligerent "Well, if it's good enough for me..." kind of attitude.

Of course if the Graphics teacher has done a vocational degree, that is absolutely fine, but I am dubious about English teachers who have been to, say, Chichester University.

It does cut both ways , though. Plenty of teachers sneer at student choices, have no understanding of the institutions that are best to study particular subjects or vocations: and put down each other's subjects. To be honest, I think that's more common.

But while we are at it, can we remind ourselves that a teacher's primary job is to teach a subject? I do think the colleagues I teach with (whose English degrees come from a wide range of places) would point their charges towards the internet/ careers advice and doing their own research, to be honest. I am aware what unis are highly regarded for film and for English but I would still urge students to check my advice was up to date.

I very much doubt a student predicted ABB or above at A Level would consider let's say Chichester, once they had seen the entry requirements. But a few of them could want to stay local for a range of reasons.

It seems what advantages some schools most is the accessibility of HE institutions who will come in and talk to students, arrange visits and talks and so on, and whether the school takes students out on visits (this is often affected by a range of variables). It was interesting who bothered (or were invited...not clear) to visit a advice fair at my DS's sixth form recently.

My local uni is rock bottom of league tables, more or less, and students do visit it : to be fair, they don't really market themselves. their advice is pretty impartial.

My cleaners DD had AAB and went to Chichester!!! Yes. Stupid choice. Went to a grammar school. It happens. The reason teachers should not do careers advice is that it’s a profession in its own right. Or at least is so important that someone should understand the possible courses and universities a young person should look at.

She had Spanish, Classical Civilisation and History.

I do agree on that .

I think teachers can loosely advise but should always say 'I am not an expert'. The trouble is, as I said upthread , careers advisers often are not great. Most state schools employ them for the advice they can give potential dropouts at 16.

What does your cleaner's DD do now? I can see the draw of Chichester as a location, to be fair.

DD's school seemed to manage a sensible balance. She didn't reckon much to the careers adviser, but the 6th form leadership team was good - mostly had degrees from good unis, but that didn't mean they were only pushing their students towards RG and Oxbridge. They had talks about apprenticeships etc, for instance. The range of A levels was limited towards the rigorous end (did include the like of music). The single most taken subject was maths, followed by chemistry (the 2 subjects which, I think, are the most likely 'required' for more than one course. Somewhere around 50% each iirc, followed by biology, history and English lit.

But - this is a girls grammar in a nice town with a decent uni. Teachers are needed everywhere, schools like this must be able to attract on average better qualified staff. One of the ways educational inequalities compound, I think.

Harking back a moment to why arts students may wish to study maths, maybe it could lead to not being the very best in Art ... letter in The Times today:

^ PAINT BY NUMBERS
Sir, Germaine Greer is right in saying that Leonardo was not the greatest painter (report, May 28), but for totally the wrong reasons. He didn’t want to be. Aged 30 he joined the Milan court of Il Moro as a painter, engineer and musician. The mathematician Luca Pacioli (the man who gave us double-entry bookkeeping) joined the court, probably at Leonardo’s request, and the artist illustrated his book, De Divina Proportione. On leaving Il Moro after 17 years, Leonardo declared “he had discovered mathematics and could no longer stand the sight of a brush.”
He once said: “Anyone painting without knowledge of maths is wandering in a dark labyrinth.” His Vitruvian Man is slightly out of proportion (shortened neck) as the idea was to make it fit the square and circle in which it was set, as a mathematical aid to measurement. His artistry was always secondary to his love of maths. ^

It's also about funding. A while back the massive underachievement of disadvantaged young people in London was recognised. Extra funding was ploughed in which enabled schools in poorer areas to employ specific sixth form advisers and mentors. This really worked : but it did overlook the fact that London teenagers have greater access to a range of excellent institutions, to culture, to employment.

Meanwhile, the funding in areas such as East Anglia and coastal towns stagnated and the white working classes received no such support. Only yesterday in the papers there was a report on the almost exclusive existence of A Level music in areas of privilege and selective schools and we mentioned upthread that Latin and Greek are almost entirely confined to selective schools (although a campaign to reinvigorate classics in state school has met with some success.) The situation is dire and is definitely a good reason to drop the 'facilitating subjects ' tag. If we go back to the OP , what is clear is that students still think these are the only valid subjects.

The DD in question is demonstrating and selling beauty products by travelling around beauty salons. She likes it though.

The tag might go but you are never going to get away from preferred subjects for selective courses. It doesn’t matter what word you use! The problem, as ever, is communication and accurate advice. I also think better advice goes into MC schools because most parents are doing the leg work as well and they challenge poor advice.

I also think the immigrant population in London has expected more from their DC. Like music for example. Of course music isn’t taught if no one wants it but we can make music lessons available to all for a greatly reduced cost. What happened to DC joining a group when virtually self taught?

Music isn’t a facilitating subject. It’s needed for Music. Therefore we need to be careful that this doesn’t cloud the picture about what subjects are more useful than others, regardless of the name given to them. The only losers will be the poorly advised. So perhaps East Anglia should up its game?

There can be huge benefits of having multi cultural societies. There are higher educational standards as in multi cultural London. It’s not just money. It’s attitudes to education and wanting to be successful. There are more opportunities on the doorstep, of course. It reminds me of friends in Cornwall. They want the solitude and the beauty and the lack of diversity but they also want the advantages of London. You just cannot have it all!

Also it’s always been the case that DC get more if parents can pay. It’s hardly a new situation! People do have to take some responsibility for their own destinies.

East Anglia will struggle to up its game with its lack of funding and isolation. Not sure how you suggest that happens.

Not all parents can pay so I am not really following you there.

I brought it back to music because that's what the original article and conversation were largely about : I think you genuinely may not realise the squeezing of the arts in state schools, often exacerbated by tenuous arguments around EBacc, particularly and facilitating subjects. Of course you don't need music. There are very few A Level subjects one needs to follow most degrees.

We certainly ahve huge demand around here for immigrant children go have violin, piano and other orchestral instrument lessons with a lot of hard work put into practising.

(I would also exhort those with no money to let their child join a local traditiional C of E church or catherdal choir - they will learn to sing difficult music in parts; it won't cost a penny; they may even win a choral scholarship to a private secondary school or an Oxbridge college. Singing is one thing you don't really need money for - you don't even have to buy the instrument.)

The Royal Aademy of music and the Royal College of music are among the places with lowest percentage of state school pupils. Along with the Courtauld Institute of Art and the Royal Agricultural University- I suppose
there's a significant degree of self selection with that based on whether you're going to inherit a farm.

This was from a couple of years back - oxford may have got a bit better but I'd be surprised if some of the others have.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38842482

I think I did my A levels back before "facilitating subjects" were a thing but I went to a grammar school so we probably only had those subjects to choose from. I said on the other thread about this that we knew what subjects counted for something - but realise now they were really the only ones on offer, though you could do cookery and needlework. Psychology was offered by the local technical college so some people went there to do that and did their other two subjects at our school. We had quite a few choices within the "core" subjects - eg two history courses, two geography courses, two Maths courses plus FM, because the sixth form was combined between two schools.

Law was frowned upon by universities for a law degree but I went to what is now a RG university and there was a girl on my course with A level law so they were obviously relaxed about it if you had other "proper" A levels. She had German A level, not sure what the other one was now.

My ds is considering doing law A level alongside Spanish and history - he is good at geography so I am hoping that he does so well in his GCSE that he can't really avoid doing it in the end :) But law will be fine and I suspect he will get a good grade in it if he does it. My view is it's better to get an A in a non-traditional subject than a D in a traditional subject - even if it takes you down a less traditional path.

I was talking to someone just yesterday who was saying her school didn't allow you to do a mix of arts and science A levels - it had to be either/or. She wanted to do Maths, FM and Music but wasn't allowed to do music. Whereas in my school you could mix. One girl who ended up at Oxford did German, economics and Chemistry.

The examples you have given are two facilitating and one not facilitating. Two is ok. So your examples were never going to be an issue! That’s how misunderstandings come about. No one says all three must be facilitating.

Piggy: education isn’t all about money. It is about wanting better and steering DC into good choices. The schools offer core subjects. Saying DC are not bright enough to do them because they are poor is arguing against what you are saying on other threads.

When did I say that? Not clear where you got that from?

Fairweather -Law A'level will only be frowned upon if it is not accompanied by other facilitating subjects. It doesn't need to be all facilitating subjects and that applies to all universities. Two is usually the recommendation.

DS2 who is thinking of studying Bus.Mgt has been looking at uni prospectuses and although they do not recommend specific A'level subjects for his intended course, they do recommend 1 humanity and 1 social science, the third one can be anything else from any category which i think is a way of make sure they get well rounded students.