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.

It is wrong that 16-yr-olds (15, in many cases, at the time they make their choices) are having to make such significant decisions without adequate guidance.

OTOH it could be argued that a lot of the students who go for the soft options are the ones who are only being funnelled into uni to bump up the numbers; they should really be doing something else

Well a bit of it was, I got that from the Cambridge website (there is a link to it on my post of the soft options list at 10.28) - my italics were just for emphasis!

I am so grateful this issue has come to the fore - dd1 has just had to chose A level subjects. She is very bright, at what is considered a good catholic girls' comp, but guidance has been almost non existent. (Compulsory 6th form open day was more a marketing exercise for girls coming from other schools.) I grew up abroad, and wondered if my suspicion of these soft option A levels was ill-informed, especially as her English teacher recommended that as she is so good at English Lit she do media studies! I said I considered that rather a micky mouse subject, was I wrong, and he looked astonished. Unfortunately she has taken his advice, so I will be showing her this thread, especially Xenia's comments, for back up (she really should be taking history but dislikes history teacher!)

I'd be wary of using the term "mickey mouse subject" - there are good reasons for saying that things such as film and television can be studied in as rigorous a way as paintings (history of art) and the written word (literature and drama). However, courses such as English Lit do have a better reputation, and offer a broad base for study of modern media at a higher level. The issue, I think, in this thread, is not so much that a certain course in a certain school isn't rigorous, but that universities often do have preferences for certain subjects and school students aren't always being informed of this.

But Media Studies, while admittedly having merits of its own, would be fairly mickey mouse for a student who might want to study English seriously later; another 'proper' subject would be much more useful.

Course requirements for English at Cambridge:

Not Media Studies though, even as a may possibly option.

Yes, I think, in my cumbersome way, that was what I was trying to say. Perhaps "not as useful" is better than mickey mouse, which rather implies the subject is in itself not worthy of study.

Apparently A levels are now easier so I suppose my experience is irrelevant. However, having studied Shakespeare, the Gobetween and Marlowe in Eng Lit and Restoration Drama, Brecht and Strindberg in Theatre Studies, I found that one was no easier than the other. Theatre Studies was arguably harder because it was difficult to get a high mark for the practical element. (And this would actually be a good reason to avoid it if choosind 6th form studies on the basis of likely grades).

My DS3 has just put in his options for A level- Sociology, Theatre Studies and Film Studies . Now DD1 did Theatre Studies, and went on to study Performing Arts at Dartington College, and her workload was very heavy.

Film Studies I assumed was a mickey mouse subject (DH said does it involve just sitting around watching films) but having spoken to the teacher the course content is similar to English Lit. As DS3 won't even consider taking English Lit, it's probably the next best thing. His options are fairly limited because of the GCSEs he's taking (Art, Theatre, Food Tech being the options he chose over History, Geography etc)

DS2 is almost at the end of his IB course and that is much more rounded. 6 subjects including English, maths, science, a language and a humanities subject (and Theatre studies of course )

DS1 took 4 A levels including General Studies. He got an A in that as it doesn't count!!!!!

There are several reasons that the "soft" subjects are becoming more popular. One is that there are more students of staying on (and many of them would find the "hard" subjects" too difficult). Also, there is often a shortage of specialist teachers in the "hard" subjects up to GCSE so that reasonably able students may find Maths, Science, Languages etc more difficult/less interesting than they should be.
DS1 took General Studies AS without any preparation and got an A, so I don't think much of that qualification! Has anyone a view on the usefulness of Critical Thinking AS - does it help students think/work better? DS2 is expected to take it in his A2 year.

Well, yes, you could ask if History and Eng Lit aren't just sitting around reading books...

Oi, I did economics A-level at a selective independent school and it certainly wasn't a soft option, or seen as such! And didn't put admissions tutors off girls from my school - about a dozen went to Oxbridge.

Also did Eng Lit and History, though, so I guess it balances out. And this was in the 80s so probably less relevant now.

Objection to less traditional subjects, I guess, is that you are narrowing your field of study too early.

Film Studies would be very useful (just as a thought) for anyone planning to take a Theology degree; there was a whole module on film and imagery in this degree (I opted for soemthing else), and the MA students participated as well.

No good school, I suppose I mean private would offer media studies to someone who is good at English. In the UK if say you want to read English at Oxford university you won't be considered if you don't have A in English literature and you probably want to avoid all A level choices with the word studies in them and should pick 4 hard core traditional subjects for the law sixth 4 AS exams and continue with 3 of them in upper sixth and sometimes the school just isn't good enough. Virtually no one did science a levels at my tiny girls priate school. One girl, a doctor's daughter, tired and got very very low grades and ended up a physiotherapist. They should have moved her at sixth form level to a school that had a lot of girls getting good grades in the A level subjects concerned. You need to check what pupils got in terms of grades in each subject before picking A levels too. If they offer maths say but hardly anyone does it and they usually get a D you'd be better changing schools.

Media studies will be regarded by most of those recruiting people at graduate level jobs and older people reading CVs as a mickey mouse subject so if you think in your career in the next 30 years you might come across these people (however wrong they may be about that particular subject) then avoid having that subject on your CV,

I think that last point is probably true, Xenia, however unfortunate. I do think that calling anything "X studies" is a bit of a badge of doom. I don't know why it's done, anyway - we don't call history "Historical Studies", and I don't see why (say), Film and TV isn't just called that.

My sixth form was in a boys school - they only admitted girls at 16+, and there weren't many of us. That was fantastic for me (you can stop giggling behind your hands now) - the boys just seemed to have a different approach to work which I found suited me well. There were few girls doing sciences at all (6 in my year), but we all did reasonably well.

Edam - I think the point about econimics is that it is OK so long as you don't study overlapping subjects. So if you take maths, economics and theatre studies A levels and want to go to Cambridge to study maths - you are not going to get in, eben if you get 3 As. Which is not to say you wouldn't have got in if you had chosen maths, physics and English Literature.

I think there's a lot to be said for keeping your options open for as long as possible. In order to do so it is probably sensible, if you can, to study maths, english literature and a foreign language/latin or greek - if you can. For me this would form the basis of a good, well rounded education, something quite separate and much more important than getting into Oxbridge or a RG University. Your education should be a joy for the rest of your days.

My perspective is also a bit different, as I went to a Scottish University. There they had Faculty, as opposed to subject entry, and so the precise combination of subjects is less relevant. Scottish students will have a broader range of subjects from Highers. I went in with science and RE A'levels, and came out with degrees in English language and PhD is EngLang/History of Medicine...

Not sure A level economics is less valued by the Russell Group of universities - think it was accounts and business studies which were considered an 'easy option'.

Economics as an A level is a pretty good one. It's certainly offered by the better private schools too. Of course the private schools that cater for less academic children obviously do offer the studies type courses, photograph A level etc otherwise the sixth formers would leave without qualifications but if we're talking about going to the better universities it's obviously important to pick the right subjects.

If you want variety some schools like my daughter's old school now do the IB which I think is 5 subjects in the sixth form and it's a choice so a lot of girls still do A levels instead but that seems to be working well.

Have to say we took the piss out of economics students at A level...

Do you think photography A level is recognised by Art schools? Is there a similar distinction there - ie Fine Art good, photography not so much? Or is portfolio key there?

I don't know about art schools, St Martin's etc. I do know about music and some very music children do find it better in general career and life terms to get at music scholarship to an Oxbridge college to read music than to to one of the music colleges.

My sister did an Art a level as an extra one for fun but we certainly didn't think it helped or hindered her in her Oxbridge entrance. It wasn't a hard subject. In fact she did two of them two different boards. Different boards is another topic again as some are easier than others and I suppose the universities know that.

Economics is considered OK by universities at A Level (or at least was when DS1 went 2 years ago). He got into a Russell Group uni with Economics A Level, friend got into LSE and another into Cambridge - all to do economics. However, his class found Economics A Level quite easy compared with Maths and Physics and similar subjects.

No, I wasn't really think of Art as an additional A'level - just going off-topic a bit. I should imagine portfolio is crucial to Art School entry. When you talk about music, Xenia, were you talking about people who have careers as professional musicians, or people who studied music and have been successful in other careers?