Soft A levels

[Judy1234]

What annoys me about the article on page 1 of today's Sunday Times is that some state schools are not telling children that some Alevels are a load of rubbish or rather they aren't counted by the universities. Of course accountancy, law, theatre studies or any other studies are not going to be counted in the way as maths, French, history. All children know that in private schools and yet it says some state schools are keen for children to do the software easier a levels to get their places up in the league tables even at the cost of children then being surprised that the 3 As in needlework, cooking and gym don't count for much at Oxford or Manchester.

Some universities are publishing their lists of A levels that don't count which is helpful.

This might be why state school pupils are finding it hard to get into the good universities..."new analysis.. shows a gulf was emerging between state and private schools as comprehensives opted for soft A levels and independents and grammars tightened their trip on traditional academic subjects..the task of widening participation becomes harder." Most of the country doesn't have grammar schools so the cleverer of the the children in the comps are the ones suffering from this.

Media studies 95% non selective state schools take that. For sciences fewer than 1 in 10 A level pupils in non selective schools takes sciences compared with one third in grammars and independents.

Yes, agree that information could be better when A-level choices are being made. We've looked at what Unis want before choosing A-levels but I know others who've made those choices more in isolation.

But, you can't really compare what children take at A-level at Grammar to those at non selective college. Grammar children generally more academic therefore have a tendency to choose academic subjects at A-level. But grammars offer less 'choice' than your average college - my friend's dd at private had a choice of maybe 20 A-levels, ds had massively more, plus vocational etc.

I agree that for many children at comprehensives who could never get physics, maths or English A level it's as well they do theatre studies as at least they then have an A level but I think the point is that the clever comp children applying to good universities are not getting in because they make choices more appropriate for less clever children and the schools don't tell them that anything with the word studies in it isn't going to be well regarded or that here is the list of A levels at the local private schools - make sure you pick off the same list if you want the same chances.

Can I ask a question? Why is History a good A level and 'Law' considered a soft option?

Yes, history is a proper A level. I used to mark A level law papers. It is not allowed as an A level for those who want to read law, it's done by those who aren't really clever enough for other A levels and most of those who take it can barely spell! No good private schools offer law A level. The good universities want traditional A levels such as physics, chemistry, biology, geography, maths, English literature, French, German, latin etc.

Everyone knows that in private schools. Why don't these state schools realise that? It's not at all hard to find out. That's why universities issues lists of acceptable A levels is such a useful thing to do. There shouldn't be secret clubs of information disposals which only the best schools have access too. Everyone should know. 16 year olds should be able to go on line and check as I hope some do already - most know things like if you want to study medicine you need XYZ A levels.

I read the Times article. Very poor journalism that it didn't bother to list the subjects considered 'soft'.

I don't think it's anything to do with the subjects being non-academic, it's to do with the A level forming a good broad education - PE and business studies are very narrow.

Cambridge for example, don't like law and they don't like economics - not because they are not academic but because history and maths might form a better foundation - even if you go on to do Law or economics.

Many law degree courses will not accept an A level in Law in their entry requirements.

Similarly, many Psychology courses would rather see students with Biology and Chemistry A levels than Psychology.

We have stopped offering Human Biology A level, not because the course is 'soft' ( in some respects it is harder than the Biology A level), but because the students who opt to take the course think it is a soft option.

It's well worth noting though that most kids don't attend Cambridge or indeed russell group Universities; and many may well go ont o study subjects linked to softer options (eg I suspect many would count RE... yet those on our degree course (an RE one!) who ahd that basis had a real head start (wasn't offered in my school, in my day LOL).

It doesn't take much to work out what a-levels are worth having, even back as far as I go (pre-history) I fought to take Chemistry, Physics and Biology because I realised their value (was refused access to all three as it wasn't suitable for a girl- yeuch- but was allowed to do chem and bio if I agreed to combine with typing (managed to flunk typing LOL))

MB I did human Bio, it was considered (ahem) for SN kids- (I passed with 95% I should add, much to the embarassment of the cow who classified me as such). I also amnaged Bio A-level but it was a severe disadvantage not to have the plant etc stuff and to have that to learn on top.

You have to do plant stuff in the current A level in Human biology with OCR!

They had to do photosynthesis, and environmental stuff. The kids were so pissed off.

And in the AQA human biology the genetics component was much more challenging in HB than ordinary biology. Harder work, coupled with less academic kids, is not a good combination.

Peachy - it may well be the case that most don't attend Oxbridge or other russell group universities, but it would seem very silly to basically rule out going just by choosing the wrong things and not being informed.

Lots of the kids electing to do HB would do 4 subjects at A level that were new to them, often because they didn't really like anything they had done at GCSE. So I would get kids doing Sociology, Psychology, Human Biology and Media Studies.

In many cases these kids would have been better suited doing the many vocation qualifications that we offer as A level equivalents. But they tend to do Psychology because they think they will be psychoanalysing people

Sunds like its improved then MB- good.

Swedes you're right of course, but I do think there's good scope for variety in a levels- some kids are suited by talent and nature to academia, some to theatre studies or whatever; a wide variety means that kids can excel where they have the talent. Good advice at options time is the key I think, tailored to the individual child (shame they've just removed funding for the mentor (Uni students to schoolkids) scheme locally as thats the sort of thing it excelled at I think)

In RL life I have noticed that those leaving school at 16 and going to college for A levels seem more likely to be steered towards soft or at least less traditional options. I know a 16yo who got excellent GCSE results as well as winning prizes for the highest SATs results in the borough who wants to be a journalist. She was advised to take some sort of Media Studies qualification (BTEC? not sure) which equates to 3 A levels. Her parents were uncertain but as they both left education at 16 felt that they had to trust the school. I can't help feeling that her options have been narrowed. She's taking French A level as an evening class and I think she's taking History to AS level, so that might help I guess. But if she was in an independent school she'd be marked as having Oxbridge potential and counselled accordingly.

Thy should have an A level Mumsnet - a module in pedants' corner, a module in breastfeeding, a module in AIBU and a module in WWIII for women (SAHM versus WOHM)

Ladym's comment sums up the problem. Oh you want to go into business do business studies. They don't say the biggest British companies tend to recruit from the best universities and you need a good degree in certain normal subjects and should avoid anything with the word studies in its name.

I certainly accept that less academic children who would not have been in the 15% of children who did A levels and went to university when I did them are saved by these easier softer options but isn't this the problem with mixed ability sixth forms - if 80% of children will be going to the ex polyes or something vocational you do not serve the needs of the clever 20% because you don't have enough children to make up enough to take A level maths and A level further maths to stretch you etc assuming they still do further maths, with physics and chemistry or whatever.

I think it's good that these lists are being published, because some schools and 6th form colleges to not (for various reasons) give this information to students, then parents are left to battle with them about options choices; and students do not necessarily believe what their parents say

Well I am an academic and I was doing admissions interviews before Christmas (for Oxford) - I have to admit that we do our best to get round this kind of thing by being informed about the schools/options involved, but there definitely is some truth to it. For several years I taught on Sutton Trust Summer Schools (an access initiative to encourage admissions to Russell Group universities for bright children without a university background in their family, or from low-achieving schools) - one year I taught a girl who came from a school that didn't offer English Literature at A-level - she could only do English Language, which was entirely unsuitable for someone interested in English at Oxbridge, though she was having the odd session with a teacher in the evenings looking at some literature. Her university options had been massively curtailed by the limitations of her school, and she was a very bright girl indeed, it made me pretty shocked and furious. Increasingly the same thing is happening with modern languages as has been for a while with sciences - a lot of non selective schools are just ceasing to offer them (and part of the reason we get applicants to send 'marked work' when they apply is so that we have some sense of the quality of the teaching they're receiving - my colleagues in modern languages tell me it is not unusual to receive language work that has been marked wrongly by school teachers.)

At not being able to do English Lit at A level!

That is awful!

Yes, something parents need to consider carefully when they pick secondary schools. I know a few people in private and state sector who have recently asked me about their children's university entrance, girls all about 17. All the state school children are doing what I regard as rubbish A levels not that I was putting it quite as bluntly as that but how could anyone let those clever girls end up doing those dross soft subjects when it's as clear as day that the universities the girls want to go do won't accept them?

It's partly a league table issue. if a school will be high up if it picks soft A levels then it may offer those subjects although the government is cottoning onto this I think and for example only counting for GCSEs results which must include things like English and maths to see if the children get 5 A - C or not.

your fiends must have picked a pretty dumb bunch of schools then xenia
state schools in the north of england do only proper 'hard' a levels
we educate not pontificate

That's good. I think this was somewhere in the West country, the one I was thinking about. it could be there might have been better state schools in the area but they just picked the one nearest the school even there.

Not uncommon MB. Out of my 3 nearest "good" state secondary schools, only 1 offers Eng Lit.

'Yes, something parents need to consider carefully when they pick secondary schools'

Mmm - this implies we have a choice. In reality, most of us don't but that's a whole other thread!

Around here lots of the schools insist children do General Studies or Critical thinking A levels. It seems wrong to insist kids do these subjects which a lot of people think are fairly useless. The cynic in me is sure this is just to boost league table positions - are there any other benefits to these subjects that I'm missing?

General Studies is intended to give students a wider interest in the world, isn't it? Or is that me being naive? They often get mediocre grades anyway so it doesn't do much for league tables if that is the intention.

Critical Thinking is offered as an AS at the 6th form here and again, it's supposed to be about learning to think and analyse rather than just learning to pass exams.

Both are extras anyway - students here take 4 subjects (some mathematical geniuses take 5) + GS at AS, + CT if they want to, and then 3 + GS at A2. Neither of them generally counts towards university entry.