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.

Good point about the differential between GCSE and A-level in RS, I'm sure that contributes to its 'easy' reputation since most people won't have any experience of it beyond GCSE. But at its best I think it's a really strong A-level - including elements of philosophy, theology, history, something a bit more like sociology or anthropology in the 'comparative religion' element, but also skills which introduce students to textual criticism and close reading (if for instance you look at the relationship between the different synoptic gospels, or the transmission of the Koran or the Vedas).

I expect you're right elkat that it's the exclusion of certain elements of traditional 'theology' degrees - perhaps especially the dead languages, though don't worry, it could have been worse, you could have learnt Sanskrit! - which give 'religious studies' degrees a less rigorous reputation. Not sure if it's fair, mind you - none of the universities I've been at have offered religious studies as a degree so I'm not really in a position to comment.

It's certainly offered by most of the better private schools although I suspect most people would think it marginally easier than say physics or history, perhaps unfairly.

RS (or RE when I took it ) was a very narrow subject at GCSE. We studied two main world religions and barely touched upon anything outside of those two faiths - Christianity and Judaism. If it had more been harder or more in depth, I might have enjoyed it more.

I think that Religious Studies at A level is def a good strong course as arionater says and offers a lot of diff areas of study - not just a study of religions iyswim. As a teacher of RS in a v academic school I have had many parents saying to me that they are really pleased that their child took RS and that it is far more academically rigorous than they thought because they were judging it on their school days. It does help pupils develop different skills particularly with regards to textual work.
I would say that the gap between GCSE and A level is massive with most subjects and it is a shock to pupils.
It is a shame that we cannot rename the A level Theology to get away from the "Studies" issue.

Agreed Anneme. I would love to see it renamed (at 'A' level, but not at GCSE) theology. I think it would raise the profile of the subject, but also would give a better reflection of what the subject actually entails.

I also agree that a lot of the problems arise from people thinking they know what the subject is because they studied it 10,20,30 years ago... but RS has changed so much - probably more than most other subjects, that to base your perceptions of it on your experiences (assuming that most people do not study the subject to 'A' level) would give you a very wrong impression of what the subject is actually about.

I only took it at GCSE since I come from a Church-going family so I thought it would be easy plus I probably didn't like the other choices available in that timetable slot . We only had 12 pupils on that course - I'm a little surprised they bothered running it.

From today's Times...

"Teachers keep pupils in the dark on Oxbridge

Half of state school teachers would never or only rarely encourage their brightest pupils to apply to Oxbridge, according to research published today.

It uncovered widespread ignorance among teachers about Oxford and Cambridge, indicating that the brightest pupils could miss the opportunity to apply to leading universities.

The MORI survey of 500 teachers was commissioned by the Sutton Trust, an educational charity committed to increasing university intake from deprived backgrounds. It found that nine in ten teachers underestimated the number of Oxbridge students from state schools. Sixty per cent thought that fewer than 30 per cent of Oxford and Cambridge students were from state schools. The correct figure is 54 per cent.

More than half thought that it was more expensive to study at Oxbridge, although both charge the same tuition fees as most other English universities, and offer generous bursaries.

And while 54 per cent said that they always or usually encouraged gifted children to apply to Cambridge or Oxford, 25 per cent said that they would rarely do so, and 20 per cent would never suggest this to pupils.

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: ?The misconceptions among secondary school teachers about Oxbridge are alarming and clearly have an impact on the number of bright state school students applying to these two great universities, despite the considerable efforts that both are making to reach out to them.

?It is clear that much more needs to be done to dispel the myths about Oxbridge, and other leading universities, and to ensure that young people?s higher education decisions are based on fact, not fiction.?

He said that teachers? perceptions were inaccurate but unsurprising, adding: ?These misconceptions are as strong as ever. We have teachers thinking that pupils from below-average backgrounds won?t get in to Oxbridge, and if they do they won?t fit in. Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of truth to that, with the social mix largely from the upper incomes. We?re trying to tackle that and so are Oxbridge.?

Research published by the Sutton Trust three months ago found that pupils from 3 per cent of schools were taking a third of places at Oxford and Cambridge. Six per cent - or 200 schools ? accounted for half of admissions; the trust is encouraging them to work with neighbouring state schools to help aspiring Oxbridge applicants.

A spokesman for University of Cambridge said: ?The findings accord with our own anecdotal experiences about schools? misconceptions regarding admissions, and the university recognises that more needs to be done to dispel them.?

Geoff Parks, the director of admissions, said: ?Teachers are key influencers and advisers of young people and it is vital that the advice they give is based on up-to-date and accurate information.? The university is also increasing its provision of bursaries to counter the myth that it is more expensive to go to Cambridge.

Yesterday government figures showed that tuition fees of £3,000 per year deterred students from applying to university when they were first introduced.In England and Northern Ireland, where the higher fees were introduced in 2006, enrolments to full-time undergraduate courses fell, the Higher Education Statistics Agency said. In Scotland and Wales, where no top-up fees were charged, the number of students continued to increase.

I wonder whether there are regional influences going on there, as that has never been the case where I have taught. That said, I do live quite close to Oxford, and all of the schools I have taught in have significant numbers of ex - oxbridge (mostly oxford) teachers.
Just a thought!

I think that must make a difference Elkat. Teachers who have been to Oxbridge must be far more enthusiastic about playing the Oxbridge game and advising on which college to apply for.

I went to oxford and I am keen to encourage bright students to apply. So far I'm batting 1 out of 3, which isn't ideal, but it is a strat (not that I see Oxbridge as the be all and end all IYSWIM)

I went to a bog standard state comp, my parents both left school at 14. I make this clear to the kids I teach.

I met dh at Oxford. He too went to a state comp, and was from a one parent family.

Tangentially -

if there is such a thing as grade inflation, and

if within the next ten years over 50% of students will get grade A at A level

does the "softness" or otherwise of the A level matter

because the less bright students could in theory take a tough A level

and despite not really getting to grips with the subject still get an A

I think your right Quattro to the extent that the most selective universities are already looking to other exams (either national extension papers or their own entrance exams) to differentiate between the increasingly large group of students who get As at A-level. And the schools are responding to this - by offering the IB instead, by only using certain exam boards which are perceived to be more rigorous, or by placing more emphasis upon preparing for the various extension papers and university entrance tests. The problem is that 18 is increasingly becoming the 'standard' school leaving age (as it is in many other countries) but the range of qualifications available for the 16-18 group are taking a while to catch up with the wider range of students staying on.

interesting
this whole thread has done little more than increase my angst
all this nudge and wink business and insider knowledge of which college to apply for makes me feel despairing

But it could instead make you see it as an opportunity. The schools ought to know anyway and I think even my sister could work out 20 years ago that if you apply to an unpopular all girls college you're more like to get in. That's not really rocket science if you're a potential Oxbridge student. My daughters couldn't be bothered to apply (and of course may well not have got in) because it would have meant extra Oxbridge classes at school - in other words the help the school offered was what deterred them, silly things.

my child is a boy Xenia
His school are a bit ditsy I think and just said ppe is bloody hard to get into - go for it but be warned!
Last year 10 boys out of 70 odd went oxbridge which sounds good to me

We are now having a quick look at American Universities as we have heard that they are looking actively to recruit British students

I know some people who used US universities. One was saying it was costing a lot of money (but that might be because he and his wife earn a reasonable amount) and it wasn't the cheap scholarship option he had thought but that might depend on the child.

I think there are some companies you can pay who will guide you through the Oxbridge process not that I have done that or used them.

Of course they are introducing A at A level (those currently in the fifth form will be the first year to come up against this) in an attempt to try and distinguish between the brighter students - will Oxbridge ask for 3 As (at least 2 in non-soft subjects) I wonder?

I just don't get the sixth form league tables published this week. They seem to be completely skewed in favour of those schools that sit the IB.

PaulaY - 10 boys out of 70 going to Oxbridge doesn't sound ditsy.

Paula Y - you definitely shouldn't despair! 'Insider knowledge' about colleges is overrated I think: the great majority of students end up loving their college and would not have gone anywhere else, no matter how they ended up there; and with a boy you don't, for better or worse, have the dilemma about all-girls colleges (St. Hilda's in any case is now going mixed, so this dilemma will only apply to Cambridge applicants). The very basic facts about which colleges, on average, get the most/least applicants are all completely deducible from the tables that you'll find in the prospectus - and this tends to correspond roughly to the order of colleges in the 'Norrington table' a kind of league table of how well colleges do in finals. But as I said, even those with the largest number of applicants (eg Balliol or Christ Church) do their best to pass on promising ones. At sixth form I was at one of the very few schools with serious 'insider' knowledge - because several of the teachers split their time between school and Oxford - and although they were of course extremely well informed, I was basically 'told' which college to apply for. They were quite right in academic terms - it was I think the best college for my subject in the years I was there - but as a result I never felt I had 'chosen' my undergraduate college and never bonded with it (which is unusual). I felt completely different about my graduate college (in Cambridge) which I had chosen myself pretty randomly, but all by myself! So I really think that the most important thing is that your son likes the look of a college and feels that the choice has been his.

I'm not sure if there's a way of e-mailing privately somehow without posting my address here, but I'm really happy to do so if you'd like, and when I asked the politics tutor about your A-level options query, he also said he'd be happy for you or your son to e-mail him directly.

Interesting diaries of two teachers who moved from private to state school and the other from state to private in the Telegraph today although they aren't really comparing similar schools- www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WVMBMGLIPLJAFQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/education/ 2008/01/12/sm_stateprivate112.xml

Interesting in the Sunday Times today... Leigh City Tec college Kent 93% got A - C GCSE grades but just 24% got 5 A- C if you include English and maths.

Also it mentions the CVA - value added scoring which says that if there are more boys and girls score reduced by 14 points for each girl.. Chinese and indian students easiest to teach so 32 points are taken off for every Chinese and 24 for each Indian student. Schools which do harder international GCSEs like Winchesterr and St Paul's who get 100% good graades are down as getting zero. The Times top 100 schools was a better listing.

arionater: "Paula Y - you definitely shouldn't despair! 'Insider knowledge' about colleges is overrated I think: the great majority of students end up loving their college and would not have gone anywhere else, no matter how they ended up there"

That's certainly true, but it's not always sensible to ask those who got in if the admissions process works. There are some colleges in Oxford to which I would strongly suggest that a state school pupil not apply. Similarly, there are colleges to which a girl wanting to study engineering would be well advised to give a miss. Would any sensible young woman apply to a college which hadn't accepted a female engineer for seven years, when others are running at 25+% female?

Sure, the people who get into these college love 'em, but what about the ones who were turned down for being the wrong sex, or going to a comp?

Most colleges that I know of make real efforts to be fair, but some, I'm afraid, are stinkers and should be avoided.

Yes, you're right Uber, and sadly especially as regards women (as regularly the only woman on high table at my college I am all too aware of how much of a gender issue Oxford still has, and more and more so the further up you get - it's one big reason why, cowardly as it might be, I don't really want to stay here longterm), but even so I think the number, even of independent schools, who are genuinely in the loop enough to have real 'insider knowledge' is very small, because applicant numbers/college preferences/tutor biases can and do change quite fast - apparent 'insider information' is often very out of date and equally as damaging as ignorance, or more so. But what one notices at open days etc is that potential applicants from state schools are much more likely to believe that there's a secret vein of knowledge about such matters from which they are shut out. The issue you raise about patterns of acceptance is a good one - and it's not always gender-based. Several colleges, for instance, state that they accept applicants for joint schools (eg classics and english, or english and history), but haven't in practice accepted a candidate for several years - this is usually to do with particular tutors having a thing against joint schools, and they tend to end up offering the best candidates a place for a conventional single degree instead, which is frustrating. But many of these trends can be deduced from the tables listing details of applications/acceptances for each college and subject which are to be found - or at least were? correct me if I'm out of date - in the prospectus or online. So I suppose the impression I wanted to give is that yes, it's worth doing some research regarding college choice, but that the belief that certain schools have secret knowledge and 'connections' is misleading.

i think more than anything the state/independent school issue worries us
ds is state educated but at a selective grammar...

i should stop worrying thing and adopt the policy que sera sera...try to concentrate on up coming gcse's and auditions he has - whilst spoon feeding the baby and reading biff and chip over dc4's shoulder

i shall just draw strength from the fact he is a bright driven boy and try to get him to see for himself using prospectus's etc

DS1 is going for an interview on Wednesday at another school. The school he is going for interview at get almost 30% of their sixth formers into Oxbridge. His current school manage only about six percent in spite of getting better A level results. I just don't understand it at all. What are his current school doing wrong or what are the other school doing so right?