Do students doing "harder" A levels get lower offers?

[Sarahcoggles]

DS is in year 13 and is about to submit is UCAS form, hoping to study geography.

Looking at universities, they all state their entry requirements in A level grades or UCAS points.

DS is kicking himself for choosing 3 tough A levels (history, geography and French), rather than choosing subjects like sociology, media etc which are traditionally less demanding. French in particular is incredibly difficult, totally different from the GCSE. He says that his offers will be for the same grades as pupils doing easier A levels, but will be much harder to achieve for him.

Is he right? Or do universities modify offers depending on how challenging a particular subject is?

Please don't accuse me of being snobby by the way. It's just simple fact that further maths, for example, is going to be more difficult than health and social care.

I am obviously in a minority in preferring the traditional subjects, which is fine. People are free to do what they choose. I know the facilitating subjects lists largely did disappear although I think the period they were around they were quite helpful for those with no idea which A levels were perhaps a bit harder and better regarded so I am not sure their demise is a good thing.

I take the point that HR people tend to be younger although second interviews tend to be with older people so older views might still have some weight at some places.

I agree with the comment about economics - it is regarded well (because it is quite useful and is hard) despite not being a facilitating subject and indeed it was taken by 2 or 3 of my children in addition to their 2 facilitating subjects.

It is worth looking at the linkedin profiles of young graduates in the jobs the student might want to try to obtain as sometimes they put on A level subjects and it might give a picture of what is happening today in terms of 21 year olds being recruited for that job.

I just did a 1 minute search and saw everyone I looked up did nto give A level subjects at a firm of accountants. I moved to lawyers and the first trainee I found with A levels who looks contextual has Performing Arts, History and Chemistry then I saw Law, Government and Politics, Geography (that was outside the country), then someone who has an "Access to Higher Education" in law, history and english which looks like it is a kind of bridge between school and university thing so my quick search certainly does not prove me right, that's for sure..... laughing as I type. I still think for, say, law things like English lit and history remain good A levels because of all the writing you need to do in the career and in those A levels and my third, German, has never done me any harm either as I do EU stuff too.

Eton's A level subjects www.etoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-Final-Summer-A2.pdf
One of my daughter's school's subjects www.nlcs.org.uk/userfiles/nlcsmvc/pdfs/2022%20Results%20for%20marketing%20and%20evaluation%20(1).pdf ( A levels first and then IB)
Henrittsa Barnett - quite a good state grammar www.hbschool.org.uk/sixth-form/

Watford grammar (state school which is not a grammar school as just partly selective I believe) file:/C:/Users/ComputerDisconnected/Downloads/A-Level-Results-2022.pdf

It is - plus to tackle 'innumeracy' they need to be looking at pre not post 16 maths!

You don't think the government is trying actively to dissuade and undermine the study of and careers in the arts, errol?

I think the government does have plans to interfere far more broadly, tbh. I didn’t say I agree with government interference or that it would succeed in genuinely broadening anything, but I do think they are itching to interfere again.

The range of careers is changing with regard to requirements though. Employers cannot get who they need. So it’s inevitable that changes will be made. We cannot rely on EU workers to fill the gaps. Therefore we don’t need thousands of grads in non grad work. We do need to ensure grads have the skills that are needed. We do have too much choice in our universities for the study of degrees that turn offer poor employment prospects. As the country pays for these degrees, due to the loans not being paid off, we do need a serious conversation about what we should do. Maths (and English) for all post 16 would be a start. Employers don’t like poor English either!

Maths and English for all 16-18 year olds would require teaching to be far more attractive and better paid as a profession. Unfortunately, Government knows how to run things down but not how to build them up. There is no point saying everyone should be taught maths and English for longer when there are simply not enough teachers, particularly in maths, to fulfil current expectations. As for employers - there has been years of whingeing about people not having the right skills, but far too little investment in making the effort to train people themselves.

Technically it doesn’t make a difference what subject you study. I’m a senior lecturer and spend hours and hours sifting through ucas applications. I’m meant to regard the applications the same, it’s just about tariff points. So one student has done chemistry, maths and biology, someone else has done dance, photography and drama and someone else has done a CACHE type course.

I know it’s easier to get the required ucas points doing a CACHE course as these are the people who generally when you look at their gcse results have got 4s and a few 5s. But I’m expected to believe they’re capable of getting the equivalent of BBB at a level just 2 years later? It’s unlikely. Similar for people doing the easier A levels.

So I guess I can see the merit in everyone’s argument - teachers, employers and even the Government! 🤣

I’m meant to regard the applications the same, it’s just about tariff points.

I'm surprised. Surely the subject combination should be relevant?

Surely someone doing Further Maths, Maths, Physics and Computer Science is much more likely to enjoy and do well studying Stem subjects at University compared to a student doing A levels in PE, Art, sociology etc?!

"Durham University researchers analysed and compared data from nearly one million pupils sitting GCSE and A-level exams and reviewed 28 different studies of cross subject comparison conducted in the UK since 1970.

They found significant differences in the relative difficulty of exams in different subjects with the sciences among the hardest. On average, subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Biology at A-level are a whole grade harder than Drama, Sociology or Media Studies, and three-quarters of a grade harder than English, RE or Business Studies."

It’ll depend on the degree subject. Obviously for some degrees it will specify subjects but plenty don’t.

Have to say I’m surprised ours doesn’t and it’s something I argue about frequently. It’s an allied health subject is in my mind studying science/biology at school/college would be beneficial but the university won’t let me specify. They’re nervous about putting people off and then not having enough applicants.

My Dd studies Architecture and again most universities don’t care about what subjects you do. You have to have a portfolio to show at interview but you don’t have to have actually done Art, or product design, or maths or physics.

Have you got a link to that? I'd love to know their methodology and how they measured such a subjective term as 'harder'. I have no idea why they would go back as far as 1970! That seems odd.

I'd also like to know what like means.

Most schools tackle the apparent relative hardness of maths with a hike in GCSE requirements.

They’re nervous about putting people off and then not having enough applicants.

That suggests that there are too many courses offered and some Universities just want 'bums on seats' rather than the most suitable candidates.

As a country we're not using our (tax) money very efficiently!

Henrittsa Barnett - quite a good state grammar
@Xenia you make me laugh - that’s like saying Rishi Sunak is quite an important man. It’s in the top 5 state schools in the country year on year! You might not care for its hot house approach but the results are amazing and on a par with NLCS.

For those wondering about what subjects to take for various degrees, take a look at theuniguide.co.uk which outlines which A levels most commonly were success for a course per university.
Even where there are no firm requirements, there are certainly patterns, e.g. economics applicants having maths and often further maths depending on the university.

Even where there are no firm requirements, there are certainly patterns, e.g. economics applicants having maths and often further maths

Of course you're going to need to be very good at and enjoy Maths if you want to study economics! I cannot believe that some universities do not require this - that must be very desperate for 'bums on seats'!

Interestingly the highly regarded Universities DO require certain subjects/grades/entrance tests.

I'd be interested to have a link to this study to give it an in-depth read… For a start in the 1970s DCs wouldn't have been taking GCSEs – is this just a slip of the pen or is it indicative of a slightly sloppy approach to the research?

There also seem to be some generalised comments. For example, how are they defining 'harder' and to whom? It's difficult to see from this small clip how the research could be objective since clearly a pupil with a arts/humanities bent may find STEM subjects harder, but equally someone who is inclined to study STEM subjects may not have the skillset required to study English Literature.

I worked in educational research in a previous life and I would not have been allowed to use such ill-defined terms, or seemingly rash generalisations, in a report.

Ermmm, I've goggled. That 'research' is from 2008!!!

Link, including details on not exactly value free commissioning of report:

www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=6687

Well, I do agree that is is ridiculous to attempt to compare the difficulty of maths and English A-levels, as they both require very different skills. Maths was by far my easiest A-level - for me…. because I found maths easy and liked the reduced effort involved in choosing a subject that did not require essay writing. Given that a fair whack of my maths A-level appeared to overlap with the physics A-level, I always thought doing maths and physics combined was a good option for someone who wanted to make minimal effort and only play to a very limited number of strengths. A lot of the people doing those two subjects would have been squeaking plaintively if told they had to continue with an essay-based subject alongside their STEM subjects.

Entry requirements are the same regardless, but some subjects/ uni do require specific subjects. my DD2 is year 13 and applying for zoology. Manchester requires 2 hard sciences ie biology and chemistry, where others consider 1 hard science and other subjects such as geography/psychology/sociology. So it really does depend on where you are going and what they are offering.
I think with the majority of students theres going to be that one alevel which is a right pain and student wished they never took it. My DD2 is geography, she finds really tough subject to revise for as the recent tests have been specific to her home city, or local area. Psychology shes like A*, Biology shes averging B's and Geography C's, so shes applied to unis that are ABB-BCC range.

Thanks for that link to the Durham University 2008 study, @Piggywaspushed. There have been some other studies too on this which looked at the relationship between GCSE grade in a subject and the grade attained in the same subject at A-level. Obviously this approach only really worked for subjects taken by large numbers at both GCSE and A-level so the likes of Psychology and Sociology were not included.

Subjects where good GCSE grades did not as readily translate to good A-levels grades included Maths, Chemistry, Physics and MFLs; Geography was at the other end of the scale. These studies were using data prior to the reform of A-levels and so the landscape will have changed to an extent as those reforms, rightly or wrongly, were in part meant to be about ensuring rigour and consistency of standards.

I think one factor is that some subjects see a material change in their scope and nature between GCSE and A-level; Maths has proofs and weird symbols; Chemistry gets more mathsy; the MFL syllabus becomes much broader. I don't think schools always do a good job of explaining the step change, where it occurs. Geography sees less of a step change; this does not make it easier necessarily but means if you did well at GCSE, it is a safer bet that you will do well at A-level.

Yes, and you could potentially build excellent, ir at least consistent teaching in there. Geography, history, drama have thus far resisted recruitment and retention issues plaguing other subjects.

I do accept we have a shortage of maths teachers but it’s nonetheless a worthwhile goal that some teaching of day to day maths is continued. Ditto English. We do need people who can write reports and convey what they wish to say with accuracy. Even when it comes down to writing a cv!

@Purplemagnolias Yes. I agree. Too many degrees. Too many subjects of dubious value. We would be better off getting employers to train more young people but these are of course apprenticeships. Very few 18 year olds get degree apprenticeships. The vast majority go to existing employees where the employer knows they are the right calibre. The last time I looked, only around 3500 18 year olds got apprenticeships. Some 19 year olds suggesting a gap year of sorts. So employers do train, but mostly employees with a track record and frequently people who are career changers.

Thanks @Piggywaspushed 'Research commissioned by the Institute of Physics finds that physics is the hardest subject' 😂😂

I don't think the fact it was carried out in 2008 necessarily negates its findings, but I'd need to know far more about the methodology behind this meta-analysis before I was inclined to give it much credence. I don't see how you can compare whether physics is 'harder' than English in this way.