Further Maths predictions compared to Maths predictions

[FabTab]

DS has given me a print out showing how likely it is he would achieve particular grades at A level based on his GCSE grades.
All makes sense to me except the chances of him getting an A*, an A or a B in FM are higher than in Maths.
Can anyone shed any light on this?

Is this table what he specifically is likely to achieve or statistics of grades for previous years? I've not heard of anything quite like what you describe - can you show us the figures?

It's certainly true that the subject which gets the highest proportion of high grades is FM, but that's because it's a subset of the most able at maths whereas far more do single maths. (Broadly speaking, the easier the subject, the lower the proportion of top grades awarded. )

www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

Although I think Maths has a very high number of A/A* grades compared to MFLs for example. However if the grades are predicted on his (predicted?) GCSE grades it’s all a bit too nebulous I think. He obviously needs to make A level choices but the predictions do seem odd if based on his personal data. He should do both these A levels if Maths is his thing.

DS has already done three A levels. The sheet he gave me is from 2017. I just thought it was odd it was thought more likely - based on age, being male and his GCSE results - he would get an A* in FM than Maths.

Sounds like dodgy stats to me.

Though in 2017, my DD did, surprisingly, get an A* in FM and an A in maths - but there seemed to be something weird about the latter that year for the board she sat, there seemed to be an anomalously large number who dropped a grade versus their predictions.

If he's already got 3 A levels, why does this matter at this point?

@errol given DS’s predictions were generated in the month or so that followed your Dd’s results that might be the reason. Was she edexcel? It doesn’t really matter. I just thought it was curious.

I can't remember which board it was now, but it may have skewed the overall stats.

But I'm inclined to think it's some sort of mis-analysis of the data.

In 2017 the Maths/Further Maths A levels were still mix and match modules. To get A in Maths, if I remember correctly, you had to get a high mark (+ 90%?) in C3 and C4. If I've remembered that right, you could have 100% in everything else, but if you didn't get the magic mark in those, your highest mark was an A. Meaning you could get A in Further Maths and A in Maths. Normally they tried to get your best mark in Maths.

DD's Maths teacher had to sort her results on results day as the board had got her components wrong between her Maths and AS further Maths though an A* was not involved!

@raspberryrippleicecream, yes, that was the thing (although I think it was more than 90 UMS in each of C3 and C4, rather than percentage?). For other subjects, the threshold for an A was a straight average across all the papers. DS1 took A level Maths (bit not FM) in 2015 and managed not to get the right score (albeit very close) in one of the the right papers to get him an A, even though his overall average would have done if it had been in, say, Chemistry.

IIRC it was either the C3 or C4 there was something odd about that year - a combination of a stinker of a question and the paper having been leaked. DD was just fortunate that her uni offer specified an A* in FM not maths (!)- some others on the MN thread I was on who were just doing maths missed their offers.

The other thing which makes predictions based on gcse grades at that time suspect is that the 2017 a level cohort took the unreformed GCSEs - in the case of those doing FM many would have done gcse FM or another advanced maths qualification. I don't see how a couple of years later there could be a very meaningful comparison versus the new number grades.