subjects of death for chosen careers

[Appletrees]

Inspired by the English bacc thread I would like to know subjects would be advised AGAINST for particular careers.

Given that schools are encouraging children to take subjects that will boost league tables A-C results rather than into the unis/training colleges/courses the students actually need.

So I am starting with journalism after a great post from Basildon Bond on the bacc thread.

For journalism, don't take media studies.

Any more?

It's a shame there's still so much snobbery around when it comes to certain subjects. I think many year 11 students don't feel passionate about "traditional" subjects and may wish to try out something different at A level - like psychology or sociology or law or accounting. As a careers adviser, I do get gifted & talented students wanting to pick these subjects because they want to do something different. I always advise them to check entry requirements with universities, as some might see these subjects as less desirable, but I do feel sorry for young people being steered towards a narrow range of English Bacc subjects just because we have a ridiculous prejudice against anything non-traditional in our education system.

Happily, not all universities or employers are so narrow minded. I once attended a careers seminar at The Guardian newspaper where we were told by one of their (well known) journalists that a media studies degree would not be held against any applicant.

The world is changing. Young people are bored with the curriculum and need to know about media and business and psychology and the like. We all need to stop perpetuating the snobbery around certain subjects.

oh Decorhate, does that make me a Proper Mumsnetter? I've just been to check your post, what was the thread about that you mentioned?

I do sort of agree, Farside, I studied woffly social sciences - psychology and philosophy at university and beyond, with large doses of sociology and linguistics, after doing standard sensible A levels (2 maths, physics, French), and it is a bit of a shame that the subjects I've been involved in ever since in are not recommended A level subjects even for those courses.

But I think it's as one poster earlier said, you don't cover the subjects in sufficient depth at A level, so they don't have the rigour that these subjects can have at university level. It's not just about old-fashioned attitudes. Maths and the hard sciences are still a better starting point for psychology or philosophy than those subjects themselves, because you have to be comfortable with science, logic, statistics.

No need for Philosophy A-level to do a Philosophy degree (although it is a very interesting A-level). Better to have skills learned from, say, History or English essay writing. There is an element of 'dumbing down' (for want of a better phrase) that means some of what you learn in the A-level would have to be changed at degree level.

(That said, I don't think it will hold against a candidate, I wouldn't know, but I do know that it is totally unnecessary in order to do well at degree level Philosophy)

Molly, my ds is at the same stage. Dyslexic at a selective state school (that's a specialist language college) - it's really not his strong point no matter how hard he tries. This new English Bacc really discriminates.

Dd1 fancies either law or psychology, but isn't choosing either at A level - has gone for Eng, Hist, Physics, RE and Philisophy and Critical Thinking. Keeps her options open.

MollyRoger >is my child doomed to failure because he cannot do a modern foreign language? He is perfectly bright but has dyslexia...

He shouldn't be if he follows his talents. One of the cleverest people I know - absolute genius at scientific computing - was almost written off at school because of his dyslexia, back in the bad old days. He's now a highly respected academic in his field, though he sweated blood to write coherent thesis or papers. Your DS should concentrate on English and the subjects he's good at, not confound himself on MFL just to keep Mr Gove happy.

Seems to me that if you aspire to a professional career, then don't do vocational subjects at school.

Vocational subjects are exactly that
vocations
not academic theories
do you see nursing GCSE or teaching or architecture
of course not. they are vocational careers that people go into once they have an academic grounding.

Gove is right to highlight that some schools are failing their students by limiting the curriculum
but he is WRONG WRONG WRONG to expect every student to get the ebacc

Some of the most gifted engineers I knew at Uni were barely literate.
The running joke of multiple choice graduate recruitment forms in electronics had a basis in truth.
Can you see Bill gates excelling at MFL?

I have a ds who loathes loathes loathes writing and can't focus, but is verbally very talented in the arts and humanities and enjoys them.

So I am making encouraging him to do physics and maths with his music subjects as, though hard, they'll be "easier" for him and us - history, English, business studies would be utter hell.

PrettyCandles - my eldest's school have same specialisms as your son's. They do the RE in Yr 9, I think. Earlier than Yr 11 anyway, so it is out of the way and still leaves time to do enough other subjects.

I don't think it's useful to categorise subjects as academic or vocational and then argue that one category is somehow preferable to the other.

What do we mean by academic grounding anyway? Young people need knowledge about how the world works and skills that are valued by employers (research, analysis, problem solving, independent thinking etc). These can be gained from studying a wide range of subjects, not just the "traditional" ones.

Talkinpeace - vocational means work related and can refer to general sectors like business or engineering and not just specific jobs. So, a school student wouldn't take a GCSE in teaching but they might do a GCSE in engineering - and, for many students, being able to study a subject which is clearly relevant to their future career interest is what keeps them motivated and engaged.

Thirty years ago I was utterly uninspired by the choice of subjects on offer at my sixth form. Today, we have made some progress in increasing that choice - but there persists an attitude that new subjects are inferior to old subjects.

There may well be an argument that A level law or psychology could be made more academically rigorous, but let's not assume such subjects have no value in the 14-19 curriculum.

Quite agree talkinpeace; I took maths, physics, chemistry mainly because I hated writing essays.

Sorry, but I'm concerned reading this. Please please please don't anyone think that it's acceptable to have a poor grasp of the English language if you want a career in science. I know exactly the sort of "gifted" student you mean talkinpeace and all I think is "what a waste"...

appletrees - I was always mathematical/scientific. I hated English and French. But when I started on the GCSE courses I knew I had to work at them and do you know something? They clicked - turns out I wasn't crap at them after all. I still did science A'levels & degree, but I am so so grateful now that I was forced to apply myself in areas that I wasn't so obviously talented in.

Thanks mrsmipps ..he will achieve, hopefully gcse in his history, english, mfl and so on.

But another two years of this would do our heads in. Ethan Frome must be just about the shortest book on any literature syllabus - but getting him to read and make notes as opposed to just read -- well I was ready to stick my head in the oven.

Farside

I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree with you.
Up to the age of 16 the academic subjects (English, Mathematics, Science, History/Geography, Art/Music, Foreign Language)
ARE more important.

Pupils may not particularly enjoy them but basic literacy, numeracy and understanding of the world we live in is ESSENTIAL for any and all careers from mechanic to professor.

Anybody who feels the need to do psychology at GCSE IMHO needs to be sent to see one.

And Mipp, yes, there has been a laziness in education. All geeks should be forced to present their work in good English. If scientists and technologists were better are getting their point across then deniers of all hues would not have the influence they do.

I wonder how much experience you have of secondary age children. I am all for more able students doing academic subjects. Absolutely. But, actually, I'm not all for the much less able doing the full range of academic subjects, instead of something useful and interesting. English, Maths, basic science, yes. But French?Honestly, you need to come and see some of the children I teach before you think that that is a better option than a technical vocational subject, even at 14.

Ooops - read all the thread and now see we aren;t in complete disagreement!

Talkinpeace - is it not possible to improve literacy and numeracy skills, and gain an understanding of the world we live in, from subjects other than those you list?

Do subjects like business and law not provide an understanding of the world we live in? I seem to recall such subjects were introduced to the secondary and 16-18 curriculum following complaints from employers that young people were starting work with no clue about the real world.

Out of interest, what's wrong with the idea of young people studying psychology at school?

(Any, you know, there are some people who would classify art and music as non-academic subjects )

"deniers of all hues" - has me trying to work out relevance of colourful tights to discussion

TheFallenMadonna - I think it's an awkward gap to transition really. Obviously not all students are suited to the more academic path. I can never envisage the day that 100% ebacc at a Comprehensive would be feasible let alone desirable. I suppose it's just that I think that most children sit in the grey middle. These are the ones that need to have the opportunity to make a reasoned choice, vocational or academic. They need to have theirs eyes open and to not be lied to.

"narrow range of English Bacc subjects"

Eh? The whole point of the EBacc is that it covers a wide range of subjects - literacy, numeracy, science, language and a humanity. Would you rather go back to schools being measured on '5 GCSEs' which, in some cases, meant kids were entered for one proper GCSE and a BTech-that's-worth-4-GCSEs (yeah, right) which tended to be in a not very highly regarded subject. So that's 5 GCSE, apparently, but only two subjects. That is what you call a narrow range.

traditional science subjects, maths and most importantly english for a career in any type of scientific research.

people often think of scientists as doddery types that can't communicate/relate to the rest of the world. This couldn't be further from the truth - you would get NOWHERE without good communication abilities these days.

i
I hear opportunities for well qualified bright school leavers at eighteen are increasing, for eg banks restarting their school leaver schemes. Any truth in this?

I would disagree that you shouldn't take psychology, I got offers from top unis for a psychology degree and I had it at A level.

Also wrt computer studies - I know lots of geeky guys in fab careers who did that. It is ICT that is crap. The difference, from what I've been told, is that in ICT you are learning about computing, but in computing you are actually DOING computing IYSWIM.

It is similar with forensics; you learn about it without actually learning HOW to do it.

Maths and the 3 sciences are always good.

Appletrees - youR DS sounds so much like my DD. Talented at most subjects, but hates writing it down. Specifically in English in which she thinks writing for the sake of it a waste of time - more accepting in factual writing.
I used to think it was laziness, but am slowly accepting it's how her mind works. I'm hoping she can scrape Bs in both Englishes though. I"ve tried telling her to think of writing about a poem / play for English in the same way as criticising a piece of music.

She wants to do music at Uni (although early days yet as yr9, choosing GCSEs.). There is a mathematical element to music, so it does kind of make sense.
Her other A level choices would almost certainly be 3 of Maths, Chemistry, French and Geography.

frustrating aren' they? I'm becoming very conscious that Maths always looks good and can make up for other stuff.