Keep options open with A levels in Maths, Physics, Biology and.. ?

[O2HaveALittleHouse]

Hi,
I have a year 11 DC who wants to keep her options open because she really doesn't know what she wants to do yet (August born so very young!). For university she is thinking of engineering, physics or possibly IT but has no real focus at this point.
She enjoys physics (predicted 9), maths (8), biology (9) and would like to do a 4th subject even though it's not that common at her state school. She doesn't really like chemistry having had poor teachers from the start and really likes history (predicted 9).
Her state school isn't great at careers advice and have said the above choices are great for either engineering or science but some googling suggests she should also do further maths for physics or computer science at the top tier universities like Imperial, Oxbridge and Durham. Likewise without chemistry, Biology is off the cards at most universities. I am worried her school are giving her poor advice. There have been no parent teacher meetings or A level choice seminars so I can't ask any questions.

So would she be better doing history because she loves it (as do I!) or taking chemistry to keep her options option in future?

Poetryandwine, the joy of this board is that people come to things from different perspectives.

My DC went to a very selective private school in Central London at a point where everyone was expected to sit 4 A levels. (I think those taking humanities may be allowed to drop one, but think STEM is still four.) 70% of A levels were at A* and close to 50% of the year group were getting Oxbridge offers, despite increasing numbers opting for the US. The school were clearly getting something right, and some of that, I suspect, was ambition. Pupils were expected to aim high and work hard, and most arrived at University ready to thrive.

You seem to have seen those who missed their Oxbridge grades. I can think of a good half dozen of DCs peers who did not get the grades, discounting the couple who missed their STEP, and can't think of one that was taking four. It happens. Most schools would encourage a pupil who was struggling, and had an Oxbridge offer in hand, to drop their fourth well before exam time.

There is an argument that you don't want to present four A Levels as your offer may be against all four. DC knew at least half a dozen who got the dreaded Cambridge 4A* offer. They all made it. The alternate question is whether they would have received any offer had they only been studying three subjects.

Breadth is useful. FM is really useful for economics, which DS studied, but so is history. DD was able to intercalate in engineering from her medical degree in part because she had Physics and Electronics as well as the more traditional Maths, Chemistry and Biology. And both were able to use knowledge and skills from those subjects when they actually started there courses, giving them a bit more headroom as they got to grips with University learning.

The general assumption is that somehow taking four means lower grades. This is sometimes true but not always. For a good mathematician FM is not hardcore, indeed can be fun. Plus there is a lot of overlap between physics and maths.

I wonder whether someone in your position at Oxbridge would be advocating the same. They will be seeing plenty of students who took 4 A levels, got the grades and who are thriving. And may be seeing some students who took three and are needing to catch up or needing to adjust to the additional workload.

A lot depends on aptitude. If chemistry is logical and interesting, it is not as hard. Ditto maths. I also wonder whether it also depends on personality. Neither of my DC are particularly perfectionist and so did not labour over homework and had plenty of time for other things. They also learned early on to concentrate in class. Pulling it off becomes hard if you have a lot of time off sick, or have poor teaching, or if you need to work a part time job. But even still it was generally felt that those doing IB or the French Bac had higher workloads than those taking 4 A levels.

For what subjects did they have four A* offers?

DD intends doing a fourth A-level with no relevance to the degree she is most likely to apply for. It seems to me that requiring a particular grade from it would be akin to demanding that she gets a distinction in her grade 8 piano.

There is an argument that you don't want to present four A Levels as your offer may be against all four.

Does that apply anywhere other than Cambridge?

Imperial

@Needmoresleep,

I agree with much of what you say. But your DC and their peers, like my DH at his school years ago, are amongst the privileged few educationally. (I was educated abroad.) DH benefitted immensely from his schooling, and did not find [an older version of] 'the dreaded 4 A * Cambridge offer' :) too onerous, thanks to the excellent teaching.

The OP wrote partly because she is having a hard time getting advice for her DD. I think we can infer that the educational experience might be different in various ways.

I am a huge believer in FM for appropriate students, and you give some good examples of why. For the OP's DD, I am on the fence because we don't have any background for that PG of 8.

The vast majority of Oxbridge applicants are rejected, and aside from those who lack 3 acceptable PGs it is complicated. I suppose someone could attempt an FoI data analysis on no of A Levels vs offers. But I suspect top schools might be more inclined to encourage 4 A Levels, so it might be hard to disambiguate.

The comparison you really want, for this purpose, is between those who had lower grades at FM as a fourth subject, against those with only three subjects not including FM.

Poetryandwine, I suspect the working assumption was that if very able kids with good teaching and the opportunity to take four A levels did not offer four, places like Cambridge might ask why not. In that they might be concerned that if they could not manage four with all the advantages of good teaching etc, there might be issues with either an ability to handle workload or with aptitude.

I understand from other posters whose kids went to Oxbridge from Grammar schools, that this approach is used by some selective schools in the state sector as well.

British education is so very specialised, which is great for many scientists (neither DC enjoyed writing essays) but there are real advantages in having breadth as well if you can, even if just across STEM subjects.

The key words though is "if you can". The frustrating thing about many MN "rules" is that they almost set out to discourage ambition. To me that is the biggest advantage private education gave DC, and one reason I am happy to present alternative options.

@Needmoresleep, my DH explained the high Cambridge offers made to pupils at his school the same way you have, and had no problem with it.

I'm not trying to make a rule. I do think that pupils like my DH and your DC are exceptionally lucky, in more ways than one. It doesn't sound like the OP's DD is getting anything like the same careful advice and consideration.

Anyone wondering about the value of four A Levels would do best to contact their top choices directly to assess the pros and cons of this plan. Obviously I agree that for the best taught/most highly able it can be fine. But it is frustrating watching others lose their dreams needlessly.

I agree with you about the appeal of breadth. I find the early specialisation in England a bit brutal TBH.

@poetryandwine
It is definitely worth remembering that the vast majority of students are not at Oxbridge or Imperial for engineering. Or anything else for that matter. It has to be the best advice for most DC to do 3 A levels. Aim high but be realistic. Universities are asking for three A levels in the main. Engineering courses do accept M,FM and P but FM is rarely required. It’s certainly useful. Of course adding another subject is beneficial for breadth. However it’s not vital. Most engineering courses are not overly fussy either. Nor do they interview. I mentioned Environmental Engineering earlier - I do know it’s a growth area.

@thing47

My point was more that some disciplines with Bio in their names may be very much chemistry.

I know it's not directly relevant to OP's DD, but just wanted to echo what Errol said above. My DD's first degree was biomedical science and universities were far more interested in her chemistry than her biology (though she did both at A level). Chemistry was also more use to her during that degree.

I agree. DD is studying biomed. She says that she feels sorry for the students who didn't do A level chemistry.

She also said that when she was doing her A level biology exams she could answer questions that her friend who didn't do chemistry couldn't because she was also doing chemistry.

Thanks all for your great advice! We are pouring over the details and it has sparked quite a lot of conversation.

Sadly your DC’s experience of school is rather different to my DD’s @Needmoresleep. They are lucky to have such brilliant support and to be inspired to be the best they can be. My DD has had one career’s meeting with someone she’d never met before! It’s another league.

@poetryandwine I am very much enjoying your perspective. Her school said before that’s they don’t predict higher than 8 but now have for 4+ of her subjects. The maths at 8 is definitely achievable for her.

@Pythonesque your post really resonated with me because she has so little confidence despite being a bright girl. It’s sad given the need for more girls in STEM.

This is not a new suggestion but if the school can be flexible for allowing 4 A levels, let her start with the 4and decide after a term whether top grades are possible despite the workload. There are advantages to both further maths and history, FM for physics and engineering degrees whilst history will help in social sciences or anthropology type degrees. Hopefully that choice will become more self evident by the start of year 12.

@O2HaveALittleHouse

I don't think private or Grammar schools are necessarily that perfect but the are good at encouraging ambition, and also perhaps quicker at intervening. If a pupil starts to struggle and it looks as if they might not meet grade predictions, you will probably be told.

In terms of careers advice I am not sure if they do have the answers.

What DS' school did at around this point is given them half a day for research. I don't what happened exactly but they seem to have been told to think of possible courses and careers, and then research courses offered and A level subject and grade requirements. Their research, their ownership, as a prelude to conversations with teachers about taking their subjects. (DS was warned that both history and FM might prove a bit of a stretch, in that the former required analysis skills beyond just enjoying history. In the end the step up to FM was fine, history was more of a challenge. Starting with four gives some wiggle room.)

DDs school did it differently and contracted out to some careers consultancy, which did some very detailed on line testing (covering personality and IQ) and an individual interview and came up with groups of careers depending on whether you are a people person etc. DD was delighted as it came up with a 99% fit for her being a hospital doctor which was exactly what she wanted to do. Other mums claimed it was really useful as it opened up ideas that had not previously been considered. And questions about what sort of work might be a good fit and why.

I can't remember the provider, but there are probably a few out there. I also don't know how much it costs.

I don't think private or Grammar schools are necessarily that perfect but the are good at encouraging ambition

They also have the brightest pupils. DD's comprehensive school encouraged ambition, and insisted that she started off with 4 A level subjects, but she simply couldn't keep up with the workload. Her CFS was becoming apparent by then, and she just wouldn't have achieved the grades she did at A level had she continued with 4 subjects.

So, with the brightest pupils who most likely have the most well educated and supportive parents combined with good health it isn't surprising that many students at independent and grammar schools take 4 A level subjects in their stride.

@RampantIvy
My local grammars encourage 3 A levels. If one is FM, then 4 is allowed. They no longer start with 4. It’s all about 3 at the highest possible grades.

I think most schools do now @TizerorFizz. DD started her A level courses in 2016 when most A level subjects had been decoupled. They only suggested 4 to the brighter students even then. I think they now only offer 4 if FM is taken.

I firmly believe that people should stick to three A levels, concentrate on getting good grades in those and have a life as well.

But if you are doing physics, maths and further maths, geography might make a nice addition and would open the doors to a lot of interesting degree courses.

OP, I think it's also worth echoing @Needmoresleep: Biomedical Eng is another field that might appeal to your DD. Both it and
Environmental Eng are growth fields at all degree levels.

You already know how strongly I feel that three A Levels is best! But I also wonder about the FM provision at your DD's school. If the school is reasonably large, why is the FM cohort typically around five students? My concern is that in these under resourced times, FM could be taught on some kind of overload basis. That is difficult for everyone. You've already said that your daughter lacks confidence; the last thing she needs is subpar teaching. This concern unfortunately stems from stories heard at interview; of course there could be other reasons the cohort is small.

I found this thread on The Student Room discussing FM as the third or fourth A Level: www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5789420

Several of the comments mention that Y2 is much harder than Y1, which I have also heard frequently at interview. FWIW, I agree that when Mechanics modules are elected FM can integrate well with Physics and the two reinforce each other. Without Mechanics, IMO not so much. This is a contrast to several PPs.

I think that if your DD is homing in on degree programmes that require or strongly recommend FM (or where the large majority of students have it), a good choice would likely be Maths,
Physics and FM. (This is because a programme requiring Biology isn't likely to have the FM requirement.) Absent the FM requirement, I think Maths, Physics and Biology is an excellent set of A Levels. Many wonderful degree programmes are open to her. As for the few that aren't, it isn't too soon to learn that all choices entail trade offs.

If you are concerned about the quality of FM provision, we can come back to that.

Concentrating on three good grades in yr 13 makes sense for most students (thats what DD did) - but the issue as mentioned already is picking the right three. I can't see any downside (to the student) of starting four and deciding once they've had a decent taste which one, if any, to drop. Someone who starts three will have closed some doors - fine if they know what they want to do, not so great if they're still unsure. And if they struggle with one of them - afaik this can happen with any subject but perhaps mainly the STEM ones, then they may end up with two good grades and a poor one. One of DDs friends who (unusually for her school at the time) only did 3 from the outset had problems with iirc chemistry and ended up swapping to FM after a term... she'd almost certainly have done better to start four and then drop one.

The downside for the school in allowing this flexibility is obviously staffing and timetabling.

Several of the comments mention that Y2 is much harder than Y1, which I have also heard frequently at interview. FWIW, I agree that when Mechanics modules are elected FM can integrate well with Physics and the two reinforce each other. Without Mechanics, IMO not so much. This is a contrast to several PPs.
But the FM reinforces the single maths and vv.

Maths, physics & FM is an obvious combination as it’s a relatively light workload for able mathematicians.

I thought most (not quite all) med schools require chemistry, but not so many need biology?

When last I looked (several years ago) about half required Biology as well and a quarter specified either Physics or maths with Chem. I remember there was only one which didn't require chem- I presume they rolled the necessary catch up teaching into the course.

For the OP, I do think Chemistry is the natural fit and adds/makes easier a lot of possible careers. If engineering or IT were definitely the long term goal then FM is the obvious answer.

@poetryandwine

Former Russell Group lecturer and STEM admissions tutor posting for the first time as I think this is a really important topic.

OP, the only fourth A Level that can help with your daughter's uni admissions is Further Maths, and only if she has enthusiasm and aptitude for it. If the fourth A Level impacts even one of the grades on the main three exams, it has detracted from rather than helped the student's position (at least at the RG universities). We would rather see A A A than AA*AA or AAB than ABBB. Every uni in the land makes the large majority, if not all, of its offers on three A levels.

I see no reason to burden your daughter with the pressure of a fourth A Level unless possibly FM, for reasons given by PPs. Very few of her fellow students - her competitors - will be similarly handicapped.

There is usually something a bit idealistic in the posts about four A Levels that I find appealing, and I've not responded previously because I've worried about sounding harsh. But grades are the bottom line and very few students can pull it off. I have been the personal tutor for several students who may well have made their Oxbridge offers had they confined themselves to three A Levels. I believe they could have succeeded there, and they were amongst our top students.

I love this advice.

Interesting, dc who is at LSE doing the social rather than the economics side said that most students on her course (her included) had 4 Alevels.
Of course I have no idea how many" most" are...
I find (from my dcs experience) that the non-science subjects are a bit more "unreliable" in getting a definite A* so therefore did encourage her at the time to do FM as a 4th subject.

Psychology is an interesting A level and complements many other subjects.

I agree with psychology being useful, dc did this...