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.

I doubt that many of fizzbuzz's students are aiming for a career in drycleaning.

People at my v. Oxbridge focused school did textiles and got into Russell Group universities and those that chose careers in this area went on to work in fashion and theatre design.

I expect I am being a bit prejudiced, but I would imagine that some of those people who aren't so aware of the communications revolution might be residing in Oxbridge colleges edam...

funny though, edam

edam - had to laugh - my college still doesn't offer English Lit - you can only do it in joint schools (ie with Classics, Modern Languages etc) - which has just totally revealed which college I work at for anyone clued up on these things. (Actually Oxford's a bit odd like that: most colleges have something they don't offer, and it often seems a bit random.)

Re: the communications revolution, I work on the Renaissance, and the parallels between the post-printing-press transformation of information technology, and the one we're living through now, are very striking to me! sadly students even at university level are generally very naive in their understanding of books as a form of information technology, and the impact of that upon how and why we read (as compared, say, to an oral society . . .)

Didn't there used to be snobbery about applied science? Maybe there still is.

On my degree course the law students looked down on the criminology students and the straight LLB students looked down on the major law-with-another-subject (which was my group) Triple subjects were competely beyond the pale since they were obviously totally indecisive about what they wanted to specialise in . FWIW, it was possible to sit a qualifying law degree combined with a minor there which isn't possible at many universities (although of course you can't jam in as many exemption courses then as you might prefer to save taking them at law school). It's funny that people do a double-take when you mention you have a degree in law (albeit totally unused) although it's useless as an A-level and perfectly risible as a GCSE subject . Perhaps that's why it appealed to me .

I suppose simply because it's one of those subjects it's slightly harder to get into. My brother just interviewed someone for a nurse position and she had a first in law which he commented to me because it was unusual but people do move around. Although it seems very important to people my children's age if you look at how people turn out 20 years later it's not just where you went to university that counts but all sorts of other things like the state of your mental and physical health, drive, accent, class, assertiveness or simply what life threw at you that has an impact. On the other hand I would prefer my children started at something interesting and reasonably able to support them even if later they all choose to rely on state benefits not use their degree or become monks.

DD1 wants to do Musical Theartre at University or a Music Theartre college. She is doing a BTEC in Performing Arts which is equivelent to 2 A levels and she is also doing English A level. She has not found it an easy option.
All the universities she has applied for except Btecs and A levels in Drama, Theatre studies and English.
Some of her friends are doing Theartre Studies and Drama A level because they want to talke it Further.

lol at the range of career options available to Xenia's kids - from law to unemployment to entering a monastery. Is there no chance they might do something just, you know, a bit ordinary?

and even more lol at arionater - I hadn't realised Oxford was still prejudiced against Eng. Lit! Blimey, with my qualifications in RS, Eng. Lit and Economics it's a wonder I ever got a job, let alone a promotion... (and I haven't even mentioned my 'mickey mouse' degree).

To be serious, Arionater, think you are dead right about similarities between the impact of the www/hi-tech stuff and the printing press... amazing to think we will get to see something equally earth-shattering at first hand. No idea what the implications might be though - do you have any predictions?

"So is RS an exception to the subjects-ending-in-studies" rule?"

Nope. Sorry. Theology is a real subject (even if Richard Dawkins doesn't like it much). Divinity is a real subject. But religious studies ... naw. It might be interesting - just don't try to use it to get into a good university.

Xenia: "I thought the reason clever state school children didn't get into Oxbridge as much as they ought was because they didn't have the skills at interview, the things to talk about etc. That was supposed to be one of the problems."

The reason state school pupils don't get into Oxford and Cambridge is that they don't apply. Acceptance rates are pretty closely in line with application rates.

Part of the reason is inverted snobbery: "Don't go there, it's not for the likes of you." Part of it is lack of understanding of the statistics: 2/3 of Oxford and Cambridge applicants don't get in, and schools sometimes say "One of our best applied a few years back and she didn't get in, so we haven't tried since."

The statistics also show pretty clearly that state school applicants who do get in outperform their private school contemporaries, with a much higher rate of firsts, for example. But that's hardly unexpected - lots of private school pupils are coached, crammed and spoonfed to get into Oxford or Cambridge with little thought about whether those universities suit them, and whether they will be able to cope with independent study.

I used to run Oxford / Cambridge information sessions for a school in Glasgow. I handed out an information sheet, on which bullet point number one was "Not getting into Oxford or Cambridge may be the best thing that happens to you in your life."

"why are so many students getting such low grades"

Because lots of not-very-academic children have been persuaded that they should go to university.

fortyplus: "Article in today's Telegraph lists all the subjects that Cambridge considers 'soft' options. But the point is made that it's fine (from Cambridge's point of view) to take one of these subjects. "

And if you look at the Cambridge website, you'll see that there are some other guidelines. Design and technology, for example, is considered soft for most subjects, but not for engineering - as long as it's the right syllabus, since they rate some much more highly than others.

Grrr. Could people stop talking about soft subjects!

If I rocked up at St Martin's to study fashion with A's in English Lit, French and History and no portfolio I would not get in. Not because any body thought these subjects were soft, but because I would have demonstrated no aptitude for the course I wished to enter.

It is reasonable for a university to say that if a student wants to study an academic/theory based course and their A-levels contain too many practical elements, that they have not demonstrated their abilities to pursue that course. It does not mean that these subjects are the 'soft' option. It is difficult to get a high mark in a practical exam in my experience because you have to demonstrate true talent, and no amount of swotting will get you through.

(chippy! not me!)

Yes, but I would do hard rather than soft even if they are "saying" one soft is fine. If you're clever you usually want to do challenging A levels anyway to prove your worth etc.

Uberg is right about some of the Oxbridge reasons.

I also think there's more a culture of risk and being prepared to fail in private schools. You're given a robustness. You fail things. You get red marks. You come bottom of the class. I am not sure you are given the skills to cope with failure at some state schools where everyone is good and all are praised for trying but I may be wrong. Ability to take risk and cope with failure is possibly the main reason I was successful (in some people's terms anyway). On the other hand I never even tried for Oxbridge so what do I know anyway.

"So is RS an exception to the subjects-ending-in-studies" rule?"

Nope. Sorry. Theology is a real subject (even if Richard Dawkins doesn't like it much). Divinity is a real subject. But religious studies ... naw. It might be interesting - just don't try to use it to get into a good university. "

I disagree. Although at 'A' level it is called religious studies, most students do in fact philosophy and ethics - pretty much a lower version of many of the topics I studied in my theology degree. Indeed, even Cambridge uni and Chris whitehead recognises this. Cambridge does NOT list it as one of their subjects to avoid, and if applying to do theology it states that...

"subjects such as Religious Studies, History, English and modern languages can be helpful"

Indeed, I teach this subject and I have had at least one of my students into Oxford or Cambridge each year for the past three years or so (and this is teaching state!).

Further, Chris Whitehead noted in his Sunday Times article that 'A' level Religious studies is the exception to the rule - the only 'studies' subject that is academic.

Incidentally, everything I teach on my AS RS course is covered in the AAQ AS philosophy course - but they add the study of a philosopher and we do a few other things.

However, when my students apply to uni, I do usually advise them to do theology or philosophy instead of Religious Studies!

Sorry, AQA philosophy course!

elkat - that is interesting. Thanks for that. Because my DS wants to do Maths, Chemistry, History and RS as his a level choices. But his choices are still a work in progress - he doesn't need to decide until a bit later in the year.

Yes, I agree that RS is an exception - and indeed for many students the closest they can get to philosophy while at school. Perhaps in the past its bad reputation has been partly down to a lack of really qualified teachers for it, whereas more recently it was for a while one of the 'shortage' subjects and as a result I know several people with excellent degrees in philosophy or theology from very good universities who have gone into teaching RS.

arionater i see Elkat has said rs not a proper a- level....

Ubergeekian i like your style

No, I think RS is a proper 'A' level! I should hope so, I do teach it... but at degree level, I have to agree that philosophy and theology are better degrees.

I think that part of the problem with the reputation of RS is that at GCSE level, it is a soft option. I think it would be very hard to deny this. But at GCSE it is a totally different ball game and the course are usually quite different.

BTW, I meant Chris Woodhead, not Whitehead!

sorry, courses!

You can't do theology or divinity at A-level, though, the course is called religious studies. I think. So the assumption that there is some qualitative difference between them is plain wrong.

Hmm, not sure.. some of the hardest aspects of many theology degrees include the study of Hebrew and Greek, detailed study of philosophical arguments such as Wittgenstein and philosophy of language etc are not a part of Religious Studies degrees. Further I know that many of the options I found easiest was the study of religion.